Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts

Friday, June 24, 2011

War on Commodities: IEA Intervenes by Releasing Oil Reserves

Ever since May 2011, a tactical multi-pronged assault on the commodity markets has been in operation.

From drastically raising of credit margins which started with silver then spread to other commodities, then European regulators have impliedly taken vigil over profits from commodity trade by the banking sector, China has joined the commodity price control fad, UN’s endorsement of price controls (which represents public mind conditioning to justify the cumulative price control actions worldwide), the ban on US OTC trades on precious metals, and the labeling of ‘Conflict Gold’ aimed to control gold flows.

All these appears to be timed with the termination of Quantitative Easing 2.0 this month.

Now comes another direct intervention; the IEA has announced that it will be releasing 2 million barrels a day for the next 30 days

Reports the Marketwatch.com,

The International Energy Agency said Thursday that its 28 member countries have agreed to release 60 million barrels of oil in the coming month because of the ongoing disruption of oil supplies from Libya. The Libyan unrest removed 132 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil from the market by the end of May, according to IEA estimates. As part of the IEA move, the U.S. will release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which stands at 727 million barrels. This is the third time in the history of the IEA that its members have decided to release stocks. "I expect this action will contribute to well-supplied markets and to ensuring a soft landing for the world economy," said IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka in a statement

I have been saying that this has been part of the implicit communications policy tool called as signaling channel, which is being employed by central banks aimed at managing ‘inflation expectations’.

The goal is to create conditions where statistical inflation has been suppressed (or termed as ‘transitory’).

These actions are currently being backed by claims or studies from the US Federal Reserve and allied institutions that shows that central bank actions have not been related to commodity price increases.

These centrally planned coordinated actions seem designed to rationalize for the next major overt interventions, which will come in the form of asset purchases (currently designated as Quantitative Easing or Credit Easing policies).

Of course, the above pays little heed to the longer term consequence of these series of actions.

Political actions mainly focus on the short term benefits—which are aimed at generating votes and high approval rating for tenure or election reasons. The public hardly sees that these actions concealedly reward or goes in the interests of powerful vested interest groups.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

It’s Now A War On Commodities: Credit Margins On Oil and Gasoline Products Raised!

The war on precious metals has expanded. It’s now a war on commodities.

Considering the ‘Pearl Harbor’ effect or the initial success of interventions with silver, the series of price manipulation will now include hikes in credit margins of oil and gasoline products.

According to the CBS Marketwatch, (bold highlights mine)

U.S. exchange operator CME Group CME +1.17% said Monday it is raising the margin requirements for trade in a wide range of oil products, effective Tuesday. The requirement for a new position in benchmark New York Mercantile Exchange crude contracts rises to $8,438 from $6,750 previously, with margins also higher for contracts in benchmark Brent crude, gasoline and other products. The hike was the first of its kind since March 4, according to TheStreet.com. June crude oil CLM11 -0.62% traded at $101.95 a barrel early in Tuesday's electronic session, down 56 cents, or 0.6%, from the close of floor trading Monday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

It would be so naive for some to believe that this equates to “mitigating” the effects of loose monetary policies.

Commodity traders suffer undue losses by the rigging the rules of the game by regulators (I know they are private regulators but they appear to be working in behalf of the government).

This is equivalent of robbing commodity traders of their property rights...just to justify current policies.

What if the US government decides to apply the same to the stock market?

Yet this New York Times article says that CME officials, in raising credit margins, have not been aware of the consequences of these interferences on the commodity markets. (bold highlights mine)

On April 25, half a dozen officials from the CME Group, which runs many of the nation’s commodities exchanges, met via videophone to discuss the eye-popping rise in the price of silver, which had doubled in just six months to about $47 a troy ounce.

They didn’t realize it, but they were about to take the first step toward popping a bubble in global commodities prices.

Worried about the speculative run-up and the increased volatility of the silver market, the officials concluded that it was time to raise the amount of money that buyers and sellers had to put down as collateral to guarantee their trades. The first increase in so-called margin requirements took hold the next day, effectively making it more expensive for speculators and other kinds of traders to play in the market...

This is unalloyed hogwash, if not a sheer self-contradiction in reporting. Yes this smells more and more of the Fed's 'signaling channel' or state engineered propaganda aimed at manipulating inflation expectations.

clip_image001

Raising credit margins for FIVE times (or more than double the existing rate) signifies as deliberate measures to curb the price acceleration of silver.

It’s silliness to say that the effect of this measure had not been known and that officials acted on this out of worries.

Also, the fact that they are now expanding coverage means officials see the initial effects as a policy success, which it hopes to replicate on other markets. In short, path dependency.

Even more nonsensical is to the attribution of a commodity bubble.

What should be underscored as a bubble is the bubblehead policies to justify more intervention.

It is even foolish to believe that price controls or manipulation will continuously work under the current regime which promotes such ‘speculative’ dynamics.

That’s because inflationism induces a flight to real assets. For as long as governments, most especially the US government, continue to debase her currency, people will seek shelter through commodities via the marketplace.

clip_image002

And further is the asinine impression that markets operate in inertia.

The markets function as a discounting mechanism. Since the market has priced in new information or that it is now aware of the rigging of game by political operators, the market has begun to adjust accordingly.

Proof of this is that despite the announcement of increasing oil margins, oil, silver and gold surged yesterday!

What this only means, at this early state, that price manipulation efforts appear to be wearing off! And so goes the ‘mitigation effects’.

As Ayn Rand aptly wrote

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed.

Attacking the symptoms, engendered, fostered and nurtured by policymakers, won’t solve or cover the problem. Instead, it is a sign of societal degeneration.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Rampaging Global Equity And Commodity Markets Are Symptoms Of Rampant Inflationism!

Credit expansion not only brings about an inextricable tendency for commodity prices and wage rates to rise it also affects the market rate of interest. As it represents an additional quantity of money offered for loans, it generates a tendency for interest rates to drop below the height they would have reached on a loan market not manipulated by credit expansion. It owes its popularity with quacks and cranks not only to the inflationary rise in prices and wage rates which it engenders, but no less to its short-run effect of lowering interest rates. It is today the main tool of policies aiming at cheap or easy money. Ludwig von Mises

Global stock markets appear to be on a juggernaut!

clip_image002

Figure 1: Stockcharts.com: Where Is the Oil-Stockmarket Negative Correlation?

Figure 1 tells us that despite soaring oil prices, last traded at $113 per barrel as of Friday (WTIC), global equity markets have been exploding higher in near simultaneous fashion as demarcated by the blue horizontal line.

The Global Dow (GDOW)[1] an index created by Dow Jones Company that incorporates the world’s 150 largest corporations, the Emerging Markets (EEM) Index and the Dow Jones Asia Ex-Japan Index (P2DOW) have, like synchronized dancing, appear as acting in near unison.

We have been told earlier that rising oil prices extrapolated to falling stock markets (this happened during March—see red circles), now where is this supposed popular causal linkages peddled by mainstream media and contemporary establishment analysts-experts[2]?

Yet, the current actions in the global financial and commodity markets hardly represent evidence of economic growth or corporate fundamentals.

And any serious analyst will realize that nations have different socio-political and economic structures. And such distinction is even more amplified or pronounced by the uniqueness of the operating and financial structures of each corporation. So what then justifies such harmonized activities?

As we also pointed out last week[3], major ASEAN contemporaries along with the Phisix have shown similar ‘coordinated’ movements.

In addition, the massive broad based turnaround in major emerging markets bourses appear to vindicate my repeated assertions that the weakness experienced during the past five months had been temporary and signified only profit taking[4].

Yet if we are to interpret the price actions of local events as one of being an isolated circumstance, or seeing the Philippine Phisix as signify ‘superlative performance’ then this would account for a severe misjudgment.

Doing so means falling into the cognitive bias trap of focusing effect[5] —where one puts into emphasis select aspect/s or event/s at the expense of seeing the rest.

Ramifications of Rampant Inflationism

So how does one account for these concerted price increases? Or, what’s been driving all these?

We have been saying that there are two major factors affecting these trends:

One, artificially low interest rates that have driven an inflationary boom in credit.

That’s because simultaneous and general price increases would not be a reality if they have not been supplied by “money from thin air”.

As Austrian economist Fritz Machlup wrote[6],

If it were not for the elasticity of bank credit, which has often been regarded as such a good thing, a boom in security values could not last for any length of time. In the absence of inflationary credit the funds available for lending to the public for security purchases would soon be exhausted, since even a large supply is ultimately limited. The supply of funds derived solely from current new savings and amortization current amortization allowances is fairly inelastic, and optimism about the development of security prices, inelastic would promptly lead to a "tightening" on the credit market, and the cessation of speculation "for the rise." There would thus be no chains of speculative transactions and the limited amount of credit available would pass into production without delay.

Some good anecdotal examples:

Credit booms are being manifested in several segments of the finance sector across the world, such as the US Collateralized Mortage Obligations (CMO)

From Bloomberg[7], (bold emphasis mine)

The biggest year since 2003 for the packaging of U.S. government-backed mortgage bonds into new securities has extended into 2011, bolstered by banks seeking investments protecting against rising interest rates.

Issuance of so-called agency collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs, reached $99 billion last quarter, following $451 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The creation of non-agency bonds, which force investors to assume homeowner-default risks, is down more than 90 percent from a peak with parts of the market still frozen.

Facing limited loan demand and flush with deposits on which they pay close to zero percent, banks are turning to agency CMOs to earn more than Treasuries and gird for when the Federal Reserve boosts funding rates. Insurers, hedge funds and mutual- fund managers such as Los Angeles-based DoubleLine Capital LP are seeking different pieces of CMOs, which slice up mortgage debt, creating new bonds that pay off faster or turn fixed-rate notes into floating rates.

Or in Europe, the leveraged buyout markets...

Again from the Bloomberg[8], (bold emphasis mine)

ING Groep NV, the top arranger of buyout loans in Europe this year, sees a “liquidity bubble” building as lenders forego protection and accept lower fees.

“There is a liquidity bubble in the European leveraged loan market at the moment, driven by institutional fund liquidity,” said Gerrit Stoelinga, global head of structured acquisition finance at Amsterdam-based ING, which toppled Lloyds Banking Group Plc as no. 1 loan arranger to private-equity firms, underwriting 10 percent of deals in the first quarter.

Investors more than doubled loans to finance private-equity led takeovers in the first quarter to $6.7 billion as the economy shows signs of strengthening, reducing risk that the neediest borrowers will default. Inflows to funds dedicated to loans and floating-rate debt jumped to $8.5 billion this year, compared with $1.7 billion in the same period in 2010, data from Cambridge, Massachusetts-based EPFR Global show.

Second, it’s all about the dogmatic belief espoused by the mainstream and the bureaucracy where printing of money or the policy of inflationism is seen as an elixir to address social problems.


clip_image004

Figure 2: Swelling Central Bank Balance Sheets and Commodity Prices (Danske Bank[9] and Minyanville[10])

The balance sheets of developed economies central banks have massively been expanding (except the ECB, see figure 2 left window), as respective governments undertake domestic policies of money printing or Quantitative Easing (QE) programs, even as the global recession has passed.

Commodity prices have, thus, risen in conjunction with central banks QE programs (right window).

What this implies is that both inflationary credit and the ramifications of various QE programs appear to be mainly responsible for the rise in most commodity markets. This is a phenomenon known as reservation demand, which as I wrote in the past[11]

“commodities are not just meant to be consumed (real fundamentals) but also meant to be stored (reservation demand) if the public sees the need for a monetary safehaven.”

As the great Ludwig von Mises explained[12], (bold highlights mine)

with the progress of inflation more and more people become aware of the fall in purchasing power. For those not personally engaged in business and not familiar with the conditions of the stock market, the main vehicle of saving is the accumulation of savings deposits, the purchase of bonds and life insurance. All such savings are prejudiced by inflation. Thus saving is discouraged and extravagance seems to be indicated. The ultimate reaction of the public, the “flight into real values,” is a desperate attempt to salvage some debris from the ruinous breakdown. It is, viewed from the angle of capital preservation, not a remedy, but merely a poor emergency measure. It can, at best, rescue a fraction of the saver’s funds.

Ironically as I earlier pointed out, even the Bank of Japan (BoJ) has recognized the causal effects of money printing and high food prices[13], but they continue to ignore their own warnings by adding more to their own “lending” program using the recent disaster as a pretext [14]!

Yet despite increases of policy rates by some developed economy central banks as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Denmark’s Nationalbank[15], not only as interest rates remain suppressed but the ECB pledged to continue with its large scale liquidity program[16].

To add, policy divergences will likely induce more incidences of leveraged carry trade or currency arbitrages.

Record Gold Prices and Poker Bluffing Exit Strategies

And it is of no doubt why gold hit new record nominal highs priced in US dollars last week (now above $1,470 per oz.)

clip_image006

Figure 3: Surging Gold prices versus G-5 currencies (gold.org)

It wouldn’t be fair to say that gold has been going ballistic only against the US dollar because gold has been in near record or in record territory against almost all major developed and emerging market currencies.

Gold, as shown in Figure 3, has been drifting near nominal record highs against G-5 currencies[17] (US dollar, euro, Yen, sterling and Canadian dollar).

clip_image008

Figure 4: Gold Underrepresented as an Asset Class (US Global Investors[18])

Gold, despite record nominal prices, appears to be vastly underrepresented as a financial asset class compared to other assets held by global finance, banking, investment, insurance and pension companies.

Should the scale of inflationism persists, which I think central bankers will[19], considering the plight of the foundering “too big to fail” sectors or nations e.g. in the US the real estate markets (see figure 5), in Europe the PIIGS, this will likely attract more of mainstream agnostics (see figure 4) to gold and commodity as an investment class overtime.

This only implies of the immense upside potential of gold prices especially when mainstream finance and investment corporations decide to load up on it or capitulate.

clip_image010

Figure 5: Tenuous Position of US Real Estate, Bank Index and Mortgage Finance

This brings us back anew to “Exit” strategies that is said to upend gold’s potentials.

The Fed can talk about exit strategies for all they want, but they are likely to signify another poker bluff similar to 2010[20].

The Fed’s inflationist programs which had been mostly directed at the US banking system seem to stand on tenuous grounds despite all the trillions of dollars in rescue efforts.

US real estate appears to stagger again[21] (left window), while the S & P Bank Index (BIX) and the Dow Jones Mortgage Finance (DJUSMF) appears to have been left out of the bullish mode seen in the S&P 500 Financials (SPF) and the Dow Jones US Consumer Finance (DJUSSF), possibly reflecting on the renewed weakness of the US real estate.

In addition, there is also the problem of financing the enormous US budget deficits. And there is also the excess banking reserves dilemma.

So in my view, the US Federal Reserve seems faced with the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. Other major economies are also faced with their predicaments.

Going back to the stock markets, as Austrian economist Fritz Machlup explained[22],

if all of these indices show an upward (or downward) movement, the presumption is very strong that inflation (or deflation) in the sense defined is taking place, even if the level of commodity prices does not show the least upward (or downward) tendency.

Well some commodity prices have paralleled the actions in the stock markets if not more.

Bottom line: Rampaging stock markets and commodity markets are symptomatic of rampant inflationism.


[1] Wikipedia.org The Global Dow

[2] See “I Told You So!” Moment: Being Right In Gold and Disproving False Causation, March 6, 2011

[3] See Phisix and ASEAN Equities: The Tide Has Turned To Favor The Bulls! April 3, 2011

[4] See I Told You So Moment: Emerging Markets Mounts A Broad Based Comeback! April, 8, 2011

[5] ChangingMinds.org, Focusing Effect

[6] Machlup, Fritz The Stock Market, Credit And Capital Formation Mises.org p.92

[7] Dailybusiness.com CMO sales at 7-year high as banks gird for Fed: credit markets, Bloomberg, April 5, 2011

[8] Bloomberg.com ING Sees ‘Liquidity Bubble’ in European LBO Financing Market, April 5, 2011

[9] Danske Bank Flash Comment Japan: BoJ upgrades its view on economy, April 7, 2011

[10] Minyanville.com When Will Fed-Created Melt-Up Turn Into a Meltdown?, April 8, 2011

[11] See Oil Markets: Inflation is Dead, Long Live Inflation November 4, 2010

[12] Mises, Ludwig von The Effects of Changes in the Money Relation Upon Originary Interest, Human Action, Chapter 20 Section 5 Mises.org

[13] See Correlation Isn't Causation: Food Prices and Global Riots, April 2, 2011

[14] Bloomberg, BOJ Offers Earthquake-Aid Loans, Downgrades Economic Assessment, April 7, 2011

[15] Reuters.com Danish c.bank raises lending rate by 25 bps, April 7, 2011

[16] See ECB Raises Rates, Global Monetary Policy Divergences Magnifies, April 8, 2011

[17] Gold.org, Daily gold price since 1998

[18] Holmes, Frank The Bedrock of the Gold Bull Rally, US Global Investors

[19] See The US Dollar’s Dependence On Quantitative Easing, March 20, 2011

[20] See Poker Bluff: The Exit Strategy Theme For 2010, January 11, 2010

[21] Economist.com Weather warning America's housing market is in the doldrums, March 30, 2011

[22] Machlup, Fritz Op.cit p.299

Saturday, March 26, 2011

More On The Krugman Inflation Spiel

In my earlier post where I argued that Paul Krugman appear to be conditioning his readers for a possible reversal in his ‘deflation’ stance, I forgot to put on some charts which Mr. Krugman has referred to.

I would like to reiterate, “Such shell game is happening NOW!”

Krugman says,

So we’re talking about a monetary base that rises 12 percent a month, or about 400 percent a year.

Does this mean 400 percent inflation? No, it means more — because people would find ways to avoid holding green pieces of paper, raising prices still further.

Let’s do away with the %. Here is the state of the adjusted Monetary Base...

clip_image002

…which apparently is in a VERTICAL spike! (chart from St. Louis Federal Reserve)

Here is the composition of the Fed’s balance sheets...

clip_image004

This from the Wall Street Journal Blog, (bold highlights mine)

Assets on the Fed’s balance sheet expanded to around $2.566 trillion in the latest week from $2.403 trillion at the end of 2010. Nearly all the additions this year have come from new Treasury purchases — some $164 billion in the past three months. The Fed announced earlier last year that it will purchase an additional $600 billion of Treasurys through June in addition to previously announced purchases with money reinvested from its MBS portfolio.

Though the overall size of the balance sheet is continuing to increase, the makeup is moving back toward the long-term trend. The MBS and agency debt holdings have steadily declined as loans are paid off or mature. The Fed still holds nearly $1 trillion in MBS, but now owns more Treasurys — over $1.28 trillion.

And here is the Wall Street Journal on what’s driving inflation expectations.... (bold highlights mine)

clip_image006

Inflation, once believed dead, is showing a pulse. While price increases are unlikely to become rampant, consumers are lifting their inflation expectations, and more businesses are marking up their selling prices to recoup input costs.

Signs of life for inflation come at a time when the Federal Reserve has to weigh the potential impacts from the Japan tragedy and Middle East unrest.

To be sure, Thursday’s data on the consumer price index showed inflation remains well within the Fed’s preferred target of about 2%. Total prices, pushed up by higher food and energy, increased 2.1% over the year ended in February, while core inflation — which ignores food and fuel — was up a milder 1.1%.

Even so, higher commodity costs are starting to influence the outlook.

As earlier pointed out,

True, food prices signify a minor component in the household expenditure pie for developed economies. But that doesn’t mean that rising oil, food and commodity prices won’t spillover to the rest of the economy. Eventually they will!

Regular readers of this blog know that we have been pounding the table on this pathology known as inflationism—since 2008

Such as this

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.

Or this (2010) and this and this (stages of inflation-2009) or my $200 oil forecast (2009) and many more also here and here

False religion eventually get to be exposed. The Emperor has no clothes.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Financial Populism Means Confirming Mainstream’s Biases

``Who do you listen to? Who are you trying to please? Which customers, relatives, bloggers, pundits, bosses, peers and passers by have influence over your choices? Should the Pulitzer judges decide what gets written, or the angry boss at the end of the hall so influence the products you pitch? Should the buyer at Walmart be the person you spend all your time trying to please? Your nosy neighbor? The angry trolls that write to the newspaper? The customer you never hear from? Just for a second, think about the influence, buying power, network and track record of the people you listen to the most. Have they earned the right?” Seth Godin The people you should listen to

Some experts will virtually say anything just to get to the limelight or promote ideology. Unfortunately, the public hardly understands the motives behind such actions.

For instance when mainstream experts obstinately hammer on a “remittance driven Peso”, even if they have hardly been directly correlated in terms of remittance growth trends relative to the Peso-US dollar value [see How The Surging Philippine Peso Reflects On Global Inflationism], would be analogous to religion, arguing against populism would appear like blasphemy.

This goes to show that it is never about evidences or direct proofs (ipse dixitism) or logical reasoning but about indoctrination- from what academic or institutional experts, as repeatedly quoted by media, thinks they should be.

It’s Isn’t About Adherents, It’s About Profitability

At the start of the year high profile local experts had been in near unison predicting that the Philippine Peso will fall in excess of the Php 50 to a US dollar level.

Yet, in spite of the repeated forays by the local central bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) to keep the Peso from firming, the Philippine Peso has virtually been up (by about 1.8% as of Friday’s close on a year to date basis) blatantly defying the collective projections of these mainstream experts.

Media never elaborates on the motivations of the actuations of mainstream experts or their predisposition for more interventionist government via inflationism in an attempt to uphold the plight of OFWs.

Since OFWs have been glorified as economic heroes, populism dictates that socio-political policies have to be directed at alleviating the conditions of the 12% of the economy at the expense of the rest.

However, these experts, who pretend to know how resources ought to be allocated, have failed to see the unintended effects of the 40 years of devaluation, and importantly botched at predicting the Peso level for 2009.

Yet if they can’t predict the whereabouts of the financial markets how the heck should we expect them to know how to deal with an even more complex real economy?

Still, in order to devalue the Peso, the BSP will have to massively intervene by printing money and/or have government spend more in the economy.

Yet, hardly any of these experts dealt with the repercussions of such interventionists actions through flagrant distortions in the production structure of the domestic economy and the resultant higher consumer prices.

Nor have they expounded on the crowding out effect of private investments that would lead to higher unemployment and to greater incidences of corruption from an enlarged bureaucracy, aside from greater inefficiency in the system as a consequence of government’s politicization of the economy.

Also yet none appears to have ever discussed on how the Peso’s over 40 years of devaluation from Php 2 to a US dollar in 1960s to Php 55 in 2005 have NOT lead to a goods and service export economy but to an unintended consequence-labor or manpower exports.

So while we have been correct in predicting for a stronger Peso for 2009 and a meaningful recovery in the Phisix, it’s primarily because we focused on what we thought mattered most-the impact of global political inflationism to asset and consumer prices and its diversified impact to the idiosyncratic structures of national economies.

And maybe lady luck mattered too.

In other words, we didn’t mince words to go against the crowd and worked on the basis of facts operating on free market based economic theory.

So it really doesn’t matter if we don’t gain “adherents”, what we have purported to do is to offer an alternative “contrarian” point of view in spite of the risks of social ostracism. Most importantly, we aim to impart market profitability and not just entertainment value.

In adhering to Warren Buffett’s investment advice, ``Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior is vital to long-term investment success.''

Populism And Forecasting Accuracy

Does populism imply forecasting accuracy?

Perhaps for some, especially for those with a longer term horizon such as Warren Buffett, Dr. Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, but certainly not for all.

Especially NOT for celebrity gurus.

If it is not saying something radical, populism is always about declaring something outlier that connects with the mainstream ideology or short term views.

Tyler Durden of Zerohedge recently unmasked RealMoney columnist James Cramer “Citigroup” recommendation that prompted for a 14% drop in 3 days. The mercurial TV personality James Cramer appears to have a poor track record in calling the market right (Wall Street Cheat Street).

Another celebrity guru, Nouriel Roubini followed up on his debate with Jim Rogers [see Jim Rogers Versus Nouriel Roubini On Gold, Commodities And Emerging Market Bubble] and has repeatedly but incoherently been thrashing gold (projectsyndicate.org).

Mr. Roubini introduced the US dollar carry trade as a major risk “mother of all carry bubbles” last November, even when we had brought out this possibility last August [see The US Dollar Index’s Seasonality As Barometer For Stocks]- this means we have already reckoned the US dollar carry trade even prior to Mr. Roubini’s admonition.

Mr. Roubini’s derring-do concept has reflexively been embraced by the mainstream institutions like the IMF (Bloomberg), the World Bank (World Bank Blog) and other financial institutions.

Nevertheless we have argued against this [see Jim Rogers Versus Nouriel Roubini On Gold, Commodities And Emerging Market Bubble and Central Bank Policies: Action Speaks Louder Than Words, The Fallacies of US Dollar Carry Bubble] noting of:

-the confusion between the incentives of private purchases against government purchases of commodities and select financial securities,

-the ultimate tasks of (developed economies) governments appear to be securing the stability of its banking system via the manipulation of several key markets including the mortgage, treasury and equity markets coupled with the tacit aim to devalue their currencies (US dollar, UK pound, Japanese Yen),

-the variability of the impact from the recent recession on industries and nations,

-the inability by the old financial system to regenerate systemic leverage,

-expectations of money’s neutrality,

-comparing today’s economic model with that of the Great Depression and

-the tendency of experts, like Mr. Roubini, to anchor on the recent past events or from the success of recent ‘carry’ models.

Mother Of All Carry Trade Bubble, Where?

Yet the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Figure 3: Stockcharts.com: What US Dollar Carry?

With the US dollar has been up 4.8% from its recent bottom over the last 2 weeks, surprise (!), we are hardly seeing any generalized financial market tumult similar to that of 2008 see figure 3)

Except for the recent weakness in China’s Shanghai index (not shown above), Asian ($DJP1), European ($STOX 50) and Emerging markets (EEM) equities appears to be generally resilient amidst a rising US dollar.

In addition, the infirmity of the gold market, which has reflected on its inverse correlation with that of the US dollar, has yet to spillover to other commodities.

Instead of weakening, it would appear that other commodities have been firming up such as the Dow Agricultural Index ($DJAAG), the Copper markets ($COPPER) and most importantly, rallying oil prices ($WTIC) again, in the face of the recent strength by the US dollar.

So unless we see further deterioration across global financial markets (amidst the Dubai debt Crisis and the recent credit rating downgrade of Greece), there hardly seem any traces of the unwinding of “mother of all carry bubbles”.

So, where o’ where is the US dollar carry?

Seasonal Oil Strength And Celebrity Guru Track Records


Figure 4: US Global Investors: Oil’s Seasonal Price Patterns

Moreover if we should see oil’s seasonal strength play out, as it had during the previous 15 years, similar to gold and US dollar index (which has proven to be quite effective see Gold and the September Stock Market Seasonality Syndrome and The US Dollar Index’s Seasonality As Barometer For Stocks), then we can probably expect oil prices to further rise from current levels (see figure 4) and possibly break above its recent high at $82 per barrel in the face of a rising US dollar.

As a caveat, the rising US dollar appears to be a technical bounce and is likely a short term event more than fundamentally driven inflection or reversal.

Perhaps the US dollar bounce could also be interpreted by markets as anticipating the end of the US QE program, while major trading partners as the UK and Japan proceed with their own versions. In addition, the downgrade of Greece which risks of a contagion may spur more policy easing from the ECB to contain the ripples of the shockwaves.

Nevertheless with 7 banks closed by US regulators this week (marketwatch.com), and with next wave of ALT-A and Prime mortgages (aside from Commercial Real Estate) threatening the US banking system anew [see 5 Reasons Why The Recent Market Slump Is Not What Mainstream Expects], we shouldn’t expect any policy tightening or reversals of the QE program even if they expire in March. In fact, if things turns for the worst we should expect QE policies to intensify.

Yet celebrity guru Mr. Roubini has had a poor track record, according to Wall Street Cheat Street, with only 1 out of 7 predictions being accurate over the last few years.

Mr. Roubini had earlier failed to see this year’s rally and vehemently denied of its persistence, and also predicted that oil will trade at the $40 for the rest of 2009 [see Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Nouriel Roubini Unmasked; Lessons].

Realizing his obvious mistake, Mr. Roubini has switched sides during the midyear and declared oil to rise “closer to $100” (CNBC), which apparently hasn’t likewise been valid unless oil explodes during the coming sessions.

With wrong predictions after wrong predictions, it’s a wonder how mainstream institutions and experts have been hasty to freely embrace such flimsy and specious macro theories based on archaic models without addressing the impact from the policy directives by global governments on the economy and markets aside from oversimplistically interpreting economics like some school laboratory experiment.

Perhaps the common denominator for publicity seeking gurus is the ideological likemindedness, where according to Richard Ebeling, ``a whole host of economists who crave popular approval and political influence have been propounding a whole series of quack medicines to "heal" the economy, with the promise of curing the recession through interventionist and monetary "elixirs." (bold highlights mine)

If it were a choice between 15 minutes of fame from quackery and profitability from accurately predicting markets, the latter would be my choice hands down.


Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Lost Decade: US Edition

Mr. Floyd Norris of the New York Times gives us a good account of how US stocks have fared in a relative sense compared to emerging markets and commodities over the past decade or so...


According to Mr. Norris, (all bold highlight mine) ``THE American stock market has soared 64 percent since it hit bottom eight months ago.

``And that leaves it just where it was more than 11 years ago.

``The United States stock market was the world leader in the great bull market of the late 1990s, but more recently it has been a laggard, in large part because of the weakness of the dollar. As the accompanying charts show, a stock investor looking for a part of the world to invest in back in 1998 — and to hold onto until now — could not have done worse than to choose the United States.

``The charts show the movement of the Standard &Poor’s 500 and the S.& P. International 700 in the period since the American index first reached 1,100 on March 24, 1998. The International 700, which encompasses the non-American stocks in the S.& P. Global 1,200, rose much faster in the middle of this decade, then fell faster in the global recession. But since prices bottomed, it has leaped more than 80 percent.

``For the entire period, an investor was better off in emerging markets than in the developed world. The segments of the global index representing Latin America, Australia and emerging Asian countries have soared. The Canadian index also more than doubled, thanks largely to natural resources stocks.

``But prices, as measured in local currencies, are lower now than in 1998 for both the S.& P. Europe 350 and the S.& P./Topix 150, covering Japan. Measured in American dollars, as shown in the charts, those markets posted gains of 20 percent and 7 percent, respectively, because of currency movements.

``On a sector basis, the best place to be over that period, both in the United States and globally, was in energy stocks. Oil prices fell to just above $10 a barrel in late 1998, and few investors saw value in the area. More recently, oil company profits set records as crude soared well above $100 a barrel, and even after the global downturn the price is more than $70.

``Financial stocks have suffered more in the United States than in the rest of the world, but the credit crisis brought down many banks in other regions as well.

``The charts also show 15 well-known companies from around the globe whose share prices are at least 300 percent higher than they were in 1998, and 15 such companies whose prices are less than half what they were then."

Additional comments:

-the return of the S & P 500 to the 1,100 level established 11 years ago implies that the US stocks have been in a bear market. It resembles Japan's lost decade-the American Edition.

This means that investors have largely lost than profited from stock investment.

-losses in the US markets do not account for real or inflation adjusted returns. According to the inflation calculator of the Bls.gov the US dollar has lost 25% of its purchasing power since 1998.This implies that US stocks have yet to recoup the real inflation adjusted levels in spite of the S&P reclaiming the 1,100.

-commodities and emerging markets have been clear outstanding winners.


-the Dow Jones have essentially reflected on the inflation of the US dollar, which have lost 75% in relative terms against gold.

This essentially debunks objections that gold is a lousy investment because it has no income. Chart courtesy of Reuters

-the US dollar isn't the primary source of the 'stagnation' of US stocks but instead reflects on bubble policies imposed by the US government. The US dollar serves only as a market outlet or a manifestation of such imprudent policies.

-This also shows that bubble policies have temporary benefits and don't work or prolongs investor agony over the long run, yet government officials are addicted to them.

-In addition, this also implies that the current policy directives to devalue the US dollar aimed at propping up the banking system and to reduce real liabilities means a wealth transfer and further outperformance of commodities and emerging markets relative to the US.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Will China’s Stock Market Correction Spread Globally?

``We have seen that according to popular thinking, an asset bubble is a large increase in asset prices. A price is the amount of dollars paid for a given thing. We may just as well say, then, that a bubble is a large increase in the payment of dollars for various assets. As a rule, in order for this to occur there must be an increase in the pool of dollars, or the pool of money. So, if one accepts the popular definition of what a bubble is, one must also concede that without an expansion in the pool of money, bubbles cannot emerge. If the pool of money is not expanding, then people — irrespective of their psychological disposition — simply do not have the ability to generate bubbles in various markets.” Frank Shostak, How Can the Fed Prevent Asset Bubbles?

It looks likely that we may have reached a turning point for this cycle.

I’m not suggesting that we are at the end of the secular bull market phase, but given the truism that no trend moves in a straight line, a reprieve should be warranted.

To consider, September and October has been the weakest months of the annual seasonal cycle, where most of the stock market “shocks” have occurred. The culmination of last year’s meltdown in October should be a fresh example.

Although, this is not to imply that we are about to be envisaged by another crisis this year (another larger bust looms 2-4 years from now), the point is, overstretched markets could likely utilize seasonal variables as fulcrum for a pause-or a window of opportunity for accumulation.

A China Led Countercyclical Trend

My case for an ephemeral inflection point is primarily focused on China.

Since China’s stockmarket bellwether, the Shanghai Index (SSEC), defied “gravity” during the predominant bleakness following last year’s crash, and most importantly, served as the inspirational leader for global bourses, its action would likely have a telling impact on the directions of global stock markets.

In short, my premise is that global markets are likely to follow China.

True, the SSEC had a two week correction, which have accounted for nearly 11% decline (as seen in Figure 1) but this has, so far, been largely ignored by global bourses.

Figure 1: Stockcharts.com: The Shanghai Index Rolling Over

Nevertheless, the action in China’s market appears to weigh more on commodities on the interim. This should impact the actions in many commodity exporting emerging markets.

The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) which tracks international shipping prices of various dry bulk cargoes of commodities as coal, iron ore or grain has been on a descent since June.

This has equally been manifested in prices Crude oil (WTIC) which appears to have carved out a “double top” formation.

In short, there seems to be a semblance of distribution evolving in the China-commodity markets.

The possible implication is perhaps China’s leash effect on global stock markets will lag.

From a technical perspective, using the last major (Feb-Mar) correction as reference, a 20% decline would bring the SSEC to a 50% Fibonacci retracement, while a 25% fall would translate to 61.8% retracement.

And any decline that exceeds the last level may suggest for a major inflection point, albeit technical indicators are never foolproof.

Moreover, from a perspective of double top formation in oil; if a breakdown of the $60 support occurs then $49-50 could be the next target level.

As a reminder, for us, technicals serve only as guidepost and not as major decision factors. The reason I brought up the failure in the S&P 500 head and shoulder pattern last July [see Example Of Chart Pattern Failure] was to demonstrate the folly of extreme dependence on charts.

As prolific trader analyst Dennis Gartman suggests in his 22 Trading rules, ``To trade successfully, think like a fundamentalist; trade like a technician. It is imperative that we understand the fundamentals driving a trade, but also that we understand the market's technicals. When we do, then, and only then, can we or should we, trade.”

In short, understanding market sponsorship or identifying forces that have been responsible for the actions in the marketplace are more important than simple pattern recognition. Together they become a potent weapon.

So despite the recent 11% decline of the SSEC, on a year date basis it remains up by a staggering 67%.

Politicization Of The Financial Markets

Some experts have suggested that when global stock markets would correct, such would transpire under the environment of a rising US dollar index, since this would signal a liquidity tightening.

I am not sure that this would be the case, although the market actions may work in such direction where the causality would appear reflexive.

Unless the implication is that the impact from the inflationary policies has reached its pinnacle or would extrapolate to a manifestation of the eroding effects of such policies, where forces from misallocated resources would be reasserting themselves, such reasoning overlooks prospective policy responses.

The US dollar index (USD) has recently broken down but has been drifting above the breached support levels (see above chart).

It could rally in the backdrop of declining stock markets and commodity prices, although it is likely to reflect on a correlation trade than a cause and effect dynamic.

By correlation trade, I mean that since the markets have been accustomed or inured to the inverse relationship of the US dollar and commodities, any signs of weaknesses in the commodities sphere would likely spur an intuitive rotation back into the US dollar.

Some may call it “flight to safety”. But I would resist the notion that the US dollar would represent anywhere near safehaven status given the present policy directions.

However, if the US dollar fails to rally while global stocks weaken, then any correction, thus, will likely be mild and short.

So yes, the movement of the US dollar index is an important factor in gauging the movements of the global stock markets.

But one must be reminded that last year’s ferocious rally in the US dollar index was triggered by a dysfunctional global banking system when the US experienced a near collapse prompted by electronic “institutional” bank run.

This isn’t likely to be the case today.

So far, aside from the seeming “normalization” of credit flows seen in the credit markets, our longstanding premise has been that global authorities, operating on the mental and theoretical framework of mainstream economics, will refrain from exhausting present gains from which have been viewed as policy triumph.

Hence our bet is that they will likely pursue the more of the same tact in order to sustain the winning streak. The latest US FOMC transcript to maintain current policies could be interpreted as one.

Why take the party punch bowl away when the financial elite are having their bacchanalian orgy?

As we noted in last week’s Crack-Up Boom Spreads To Asia And The Philippines, ``Where financial markets once functioned as signals for economic transitions, it would now appear that financial markets have become the essence of global economies, where the real economy have been subordinated to paper shuffling activities.”

Where policymakers inherently sees rising financial assets as signals of economic growth, the reality is that most of the current pricing stickiness has been fueled by excessive money printing that has prompted for intensive speculations more than real economic growth.


Figure 2: New York Times: Hints of a Rebound in Global Trade?

For instance, Floyd Norris of the New York Times has a great chart depicting the year on year changes of global trade based on dollar volume of exports.

While there has indeed been some improvements coming off the synchronized collapse last year, the growth rates haven’t been all that impressive.

In short, rapidly inflating markets and a tepid growth in the global economy manifest signs of disconnect!

Yet global policymakers won’t risk the impression that economic growth will falter as signaled by falling financial asset prices. Hence, they are likely to further boost the “animal spirits” by adopting policies that will directly support financial assets and hope that any improvements will have a spillover effect to the real economy via the “aggregate demand” transmission mechanism.

Alternatively, one may interpret this as the politicization of the financial markets.

To give you an example, bank lending in China has materially slowed in July see figure 3. This could have accounted for the recent correction in the SSEC.


Figure 3: US Global Investors: Declining Bank Loans

According to US Global Investors ``China’s new lending data for July may be a blessing in disguise, as the slowdown can partly be attributed to a sharp month-over-month decrease in bill financing. Excluding bills, July’s new loans to companies and households were comparable to May and higher than April. With more higher-yielding, long-term loans replacing lower interest-bearing bill financing, margins at Chinese banks should improve as long as corporate funding demand remains strong and overall loan quality stays healthy.”

While this could be seen as the optimistic aspect, the fact is that aside from the overheated and overextended stock markets, property markets have likewise been benefiting from the monetary shindig- property sales up 60% for the first seven months and where residential investments “rose 11.6 percent, up from 9.9 percent in the six months to June 30” “powered by $1.1 trillion of lending in the first six months” (Bloomberg)

True, some of these have filtered over to the real economy as China’s power generation expanded by 4.8% in July (Finfacts) while domestic car sales soared by 63% (caijing) both on a year to year basis.

So in the account of a persistent weak external demand, Chinese policymakers have opted to gamble with fiscal and policies targeted at domestic investments…particularly on property and infrastructure.

Remember, the US consumers, which had been China’s largest market, has remained on the defensive since they’ve been suffering from the adjustments of over indebtedness which would take years (if not decades) to resolve (see figure 4).


Figure 4: Danske Research: US Consumers In Doldrums

And since investments accounts for as the biggest share in China’s economy, as we discussed in last November’s China’s Bailout Package; Shanghai Index At Possible Bottom?, ``the largest chunk of China’s GDP has been in investments which is estimated at 40% (the Economist) or 30% (Dragonomics-GaveKal) of the economy where over half of these are into infrastructure [30.8% of total construction investments (source: Dragonomics-Gavekal)] and property [24% of total construction investments]”, the object of policy based thrust to support domestic bubbles seem quite enchanting to policymakers.

Besides, if the objective is about control, in a still largely command and control type of governance, then Chinese policymakers can do little to support US consumers than to inflate local bubbles.

Aside, as we discussed in last week’s The Fallacies of Inflating Away Debt, “conflict-of –interests” issues on policymaking always poses a risk, since authorities are likely to seek short term gains for political ends or goals.

From last week ``policymakers are likely to take actions that are designed for generating short term “visible” benefits at the cost of deferring the “unseen” cumulative long term risks, which are usually are aligned with the office tenure (let the next guy handle the mess) or if they happen to be politically influenced by the incumbent administration (generates impacts that can win votes)”

In China, political incentive issues could be another important variable at work in support of bubble policies.

Michael Kurtz, a Shanghai-based strategist and head of China research for Macquarie Securities Michael Kurtz, in an article at the Wall Street Journal apparently validates our general observation.

From Mr. Kurtz (bold highlights mine),

``…far from being an accidental consequence of loose monetary policy, stand out as the purpose of that policy. The fact that housing construction must carry so much of the growth burden means policy makers likely prefer to err well on the side of too much inflation rather than risk choking off growth too early by mistiming tightening.

``Meanwhile, China's political cycle may exacerbate risks of an asset bubble. President and Communist Party Chairman Hu Jintao and other senior leaders are expected to step down at the party's five-year congress in October 2012. Much of the jockeying for appointments to top jobs is already under way, especially for key slots in the Politburo. Mr. Hu will want to secure seats for five of his allies on that body's nine-member standing committee, ensuring his continued influence from the sidelines and allowing him to protect his political legacy.

``This requires that Mr. Hu deliver headline GDP growth at or above the 8% level that China's conventional wisdom associates with robust job creation, lest he leave himself open to criticism from ambitious rivals. The related political need to avoid ruffling too many feathers in China's establishment also may incline leaders toward lower-conflict approaches to growth, rather than deep structural reforms that would help rebalance demand toward sustainable private consumption. Easy money is less politically costly than rural land reform or state-enterprise dividend restructuring. This is especially the case given that much of the hangover of a Chinese asset bubble would fall not on the current leadership, but on the next.”

So the “window dressing” of the Chinese economy for election purposes fits our conflict of interest description to a tee!

Overall, it would seem like a mistake to interpret any signs of a prospective rally in the US dollar on “tightening” simply because policymakers (in China, the US, the Philippines or elsewhere) are likely to engage in more inflationary actions for political ends (policy triumph, elections, et. al.).

Hence, any signs of market weakness will likely prompt for more actions to support the asset prices.