Changing Dynamics In Central Bank Management, Quasi Boom Policies

``With the economic improvement and steepening yield curve that our US team expects, commercial banks may find it a good risk/return decision to move these funds into the real economy rather than simply earn an interest rate in the neighborhood of the risk-free IOR. The risk therefore is that these methods of draining reserves simply postpone the macro problem of burgeoning excess reserves.”-Manoj Pradhan ER, RR, IOR and RRR

It’s a simple fact that the world constantly changes.

Even the management of central banks given today’s monetary conditions has been exhibiting such changes. Traditional tools don’t seem to have the same measured ‘efficacy’ due to the drastic stimulus-response feedback loop mechanism applied by authorities in response to the rapidly changing environment. I would posit that the past successes had not been out of bureaucratic skills but out of happenstance; the emergence of globalization had engendered the era of the “great moderation”.

For instance, in an effort to curb the incidences of bank failures during the latest crisis, central banks have rapidly deployed the unorthodox (nuclear option) means of providing emergency loans against ‘dubious’ forms of collateral and importantly the purchasing of specific types of bubble ‘tainted’ assets directly from the market.

The proceeds from the central bank loans or sales have led to the intensive ballooning of excess reserves (ER) of banks, which until today, has been warehoused in the central bank. Considering the extent of balance sheet impairments of the US banking system, the temporary measures have not yet adequately resolved the chronic woes, nor has these excess reserves been converted into end user or consumer loans. Not yet anyway.

Hence, the huge buildup of excess reserves has apparently altered the scalability of the tools required to deal with balance sheet management of the central bank.

Morgan Stanley’s Manoj Pradhan describes the transition, ``The traditional way of draining reserves was to sell T-Bills to commercial banks. This would mean that commercial banks would replace cash on the asset side of their balance sheet with the T-Bill of an equivalent quantity. However, ER held by the Fed now stand at US$1.1 trillion and the size makes it difficult for reserves to be drained in the traditional way.” (emphasis mine)

In other words, the change in the discount rates or possibly even the Fed Fund rate may seem more symbolic than functional. And perhaps this may be one reason why the markets appear to have discounted the recent actions by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve has thus been tinkering with experimental tools such as reverse repo, term deposit facilities and interest rates on reserves.

So while the Fed desires to see ample liquidity in the system, withdrawing the huge stack of bank reserves underlines the apparently emerging distinct objectives- the task of liquidity and interest rate management.

Reviving The Credit Process By Fueling Bubbles

On our part, we understand the fact the Fed is dabbling with generally untested tools relative to the new circumstances it is faced with brings about greater risks than what the mainstream expects.

For one, it is becoming clearer that credit demand hasn’t been the underlying problem as alleged by many, instead it looks more likely to be a ‘supply’ problem, where tight lending from banks have stifled the credit process.

As proof, many in the US, have turned to local ‘scrip’ currencies in the face of money shortages to conduct business or trade [see Emerging Local Currencies In The US Disproves The 'Liquidity Trap']. There are as many as 100 local currencies operating in the US today.

Next, banks that have benefited from government’s bailout have reportedly been averse at lending to small business.

According to CNN Small Business,

``Small business loans continue to dry up at the nation's biggest banks. Eleven top TARP recipients -- including Wells Fargo, by far the nation's largest lender to small companies -- cut their collective small business loan balance by more than $2.3 billion in December, according to a Treasury report released late Tuesday.

``The drop marked the eighth consecutive month of declines for the 11 banks. In that time, their total loan balance has fallen 7%, to $169.4 billion. Seven of the reporting banks have cut their small business loan balance every single month.

``"Credit is still tight for many small businesses," the Treasury acknowledged in a Feb. 10 report.

Another, government interventions in the housing market through a recent tax credit subsidy program compounded by low interest rates could spark the process of inflating yet another property bubble.

But this time bubble signs appear to have surfaced in homebuilder lots, according to Doug French of the Mises Institute, (bold highlights mine)

``Last November, President Obama signed the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which, as many people know, extended unemployment benefits and the first-time-homebuyer tax-credit program. But quietly included in this legislative lasagna was a provision allowing big businesses to offset the losses of 2008 and 2009 against profits made as far back as 2004. This provision will generate corporate tax refunds of $33 billion, the New York Times reports. Previously, only small companies could offset losses against past years' profits.

``Big home builders are the prime beneficiaries. After racking up monster profits during the housing boom, the industry has booked huge losses in the bust, accentuated by write-downs of their land positions totaling $28.5 billion for the 14 largest publically traded homebuilders. Now these large homebuilders are recapturing some of what Uncle Sam took away during the boom years. According to the Times, Pulte Homes has a refund of $450 million coming, Hovnanian Enterprises will get back $250–275 million, while Standard Pacific and Beazer Homes will recoup $80 million and $50 million of their profits respectively.

``And while returning taxes to businesses is a wonderful thing, home builders are reading the distorted economic tea leaves. These seem to say that low interest rates and tax credits will eventually bring buyers back to their subdivisions, while many of the big builders' smaller competitors were washed away for good by the housing tsunami — so ramp up the higher-stage and durable-production process by investing capital in building lots…

While it is true that there are still enormous housing inventories to reckon with as to successfully reignite a bubble, improving trends in the sales of homebuilder lots could signify as important clues to a brewing bubble.

Adds Mr. French, ``The lot-buying homebuilders may be irrational, but they aren't yet exuberant. The National Association of Home Builders' housing-market index rose just 2 points to 17 in February — far below the bullish readings of 50 that haven't been seen since April 2006. But the 528 residential developers surveyed say that the tax credits being offered along with low mortgage rates are spurring some demand.” (bold highlights mine)

This seem to reconcile with our view that if we are correct, the record steepness in the yield curve will likely generate belated credit traction 2-3 after a recession [see What’s The Yield Curve Saying About Asia And The Bubble Cycle?]. We may probably see some signs of revitalization in the credit process of the US by the end of the year.

And what else could stoke the credit process than a new bubble!

Remember considering that homebuilder losses have been allowed to be offset via tax refunds, essentially, the carryover losses has been borne by the US government.

So there lies the issue of the moral hazard problem. What should stop these economic agents from resuming reckless and imprudent risks, when they know that Big Brother would backstop their activities?

Moreover, these homebuilders are only responding to the incentives set by the government: Government gives them money from which they employ based on inherent familiarity, and government provides the conditions-low interest rates and the moral hazard issue/risk free environment- for them to take a stab at new risks. Besides, government subsidies tend to immunize economic agents from the sentience of profits and losses.

So the US government’s approach to gradually disengage itself from the housing market appears to be to stir up a new bubble.

The US government is simply fundamentally following the dogma of sustaining the perpetuity of a quasi boom.

From John Maynard Keynes, ``The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.” A quasi boom kept as permanent policy would lead to a prolonged depression and a reduction of the nation’s living standard.

Also this should put into rigorous tests the effectiveness of the new set of tools, strategies or the new doctrines for the Federal Reserve to deal with its humongous excess reserves.

Where to bet our money? Against the success of the Federal Reserve, of course.

Why Ghana Is Poor

Excerpts below from a Wall Street Journal article addresses on why Africa (Ghana) is poor.

The Wall Street Journal (bold emphasis mine):

``Exhibit A is the case of Kosmos Energy, a U.S. company based in Texas, which has lately seen capricious government meddling in a deal to sell a $4 billion stake in a Ghanaian oil field to ExxonMobil Corp. Ghanaian Energy Minister Joe Oteng-Adjei suggested in a letter to Exxon reviewed by Journal reporter Will Connors that the government would "support the strategic intent and efforts of [Ghana National Petroleum] to acquire Kosmos's Ghana assets at a fair market value."

``By "fair market value," Mr. Oteng-Adjei means fire-sale prices. While the government insisted later that it would not block the Exxon deal, which is still in place, the desired affect was achieved. The strategy lets the government disavow its intention to directly intervene in deals while potentially scaring away potential buyers and making it possible for the government to buy the oil fields cheaply, possibly reselling them to a third party.

``That's the kind of official thuggery more frequently associated with the likes of Nigeria, where the vast oil and gas resources have driven corruption and exploitation while the people continue to live in poverty. Until Kosmos's investment uncovered the Jubilee oil field in 2007, there had been little success in exploration in Ghana.

``When Kosmos began its project under the then-ruling New Patriotic Party, the business environment seemed relatively stable with adequate protections for foreign investors. Under Ghana law, consent for a deal such as the one between Kosmos and Exxon can't be unreasonably withheld, delayed or denied. Such contract protection began to dissolve in January 2009, with the election of the leftist National Democratic Congress.

``Other foreign investors are also getting the Kosmos treatment. In 2008 Vodaphone, the British mobile phone company, bought a 70% stake in Ghana Telecom. At the time, the company issued a statement that it was "delighted" to be "working in partnership with the Government of Ghana." By April 2009, the deal was on the rocks, as Ghana's government set up a "review committee" to question the details. Earlier this month, Ghana Vice President John Dramani Mahama insisted that the government wasn't planning to break the deal despite "concerns."

``After getting a license for offshore exploration in November 2008, the Norwegian oil company Aker was told this year that its development license was invalid, though the agreement had been unanimously approved by Ghana's parliament. Aker investment manager Maria Moraeus Hanssen said the government position had "no basis in law or fact."

``Attracting foreign investment has been a pillar of Ghana's development strategy, with the government pitching itself as the "Gateway to West Africa." Spooking new investors by repudiating contracts will rapidly ruin the country's prospects for long-term development."

My comment:

The Wall Street Journal seem to err with equating Ghana for the rest of Africa (based on its title "Why Africa Is Poor").

Nevertheless, the basic sins of Ghana have been explicit: the lack of property rights, inadequate respect for contracts, a corrupt government and political instability.

To consider Ghana has one of the lowest wages in Africa, which also implies that she has one of the lowest wages in the world.

Based on the fallacious progressive belief that "low wages are stealing investments and jobs out of high cost countries", this oversimplistically posits that investors should be stampeding into Ghana at the expense of the US, Germany, Japan or even the Philippines or China.

But unfortunately, this isn't happening.

Why?

Because aside from economic factors of production (labor, land or capital), economic reality tells us that capital not only looks for a return ON investments but importantly seeks a return OF investments.

In short, the protection of property rights is a far ascendant concern for investors compared to any costs based factors (this includes the mythical notion of “low wages” driving an economy).

Quote Of The Day: Renminbi Ad Absurdum

Professor Donald Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek strikes at the heart of the US government and mainstream's arguments for China to revalue...

``If this argument is correct, why doesn’t Beijing arrange for the yuan’s value to be even lower – say, $0? If the Chinese were simply to give yuan to Americans, Americans’ demands for Chinese exports would soar even higher. China’s export industries would boom even more magnificently. And presumably (according the logic of Uncle Sam’s argument) the Chinese would prosper even more splendidly, if more unfairly, at the expense of Americans.

``Because the Chinese don’t give the yuan away for free on foreign-exchange markets, do they reveal themselves to be really not so clever and financially savvy after all?!"

US Leads In Global Service Exports

Aside from earlier evidences where we noted that manufacturing in the US has reclaimed the top spot in the world [see US Manufacturing Update: Separating Fact From Fiction] and where the US still remains the lead recipient of global Foreign Direct Investments [Global Foreign Direct Investments Down; US Still Dominates], we find additional proofs:

1. of a shifting dynamic in the composition of the US economy from the industrial to the information model, [see Statistics Don't Reveal Extent Of The Evolution To The Information Age]

2. of a manifestation that US growth momentum would likely be oriented towards the free trade paradigm in support of the Information Age and lastly,

3. that debunks the myth that US investments and jobs are being sucked out by emerging markets through "low wages"

This from W. Michael Cox, the former chief economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas who writes at the New York Times, (all bold highlight mine)

``Exports of American services have jumped by 84 percent since 2000, while the growth rate among goods was 66 percent. America trails both China and Germany in sales of goods abroad, but ranks No. 1 in global services by a wide margin. And while trade deficits in goods have been enormous — $840 billion in 2008 — the country runs a large and growing surplus in services: we exported $144 billion more in services than we imported, dwarfing the surpluses of $75 billion in 2000 and $58 billion in 1992.

``Equally important, Commerce Department data show that the United States is a top-notch competitor in many of the high-value-added services that support well-paying jobs.

``One of the brightest spots is operational leasing — a segment of the industry that handles short-term deals on airplanes, vehicles and other equipment — in which exports exceeded imports by eight to one. Our edge was six to one in distributing movies and television shows, and nearly four to one in architectural, construction and engineering services. Royalties and license fees, one of the largest categories in dollar terms, came out better than three to one, as did exports in advertising, education, finance, legal services and medicine.

``All told, the United States is competitive in 21 of 22 services trade categories. It recorded striking surpluses in 12 of them. Only in insurance did America run a significant deficit, a persistent outcome that reflects foreign prowess in reinsurance (that is, policies insurers take out from other insurance companies to protect against catastrophic losses).

Chart from Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem

``This pattern holds over time. The pecking order may change from year to year — for example, industrial engineering had the biggest surplus in 2006 and film and television held the top spot in 2007 — but the data consistently show the United States is highly competitive in a wide range of services categories.

``So, given how well we are selling services abroad already, can we reach President Obama’s five-year goal of doubling exports? Actually, it shouldn’t be that daunting. Our overseas sales of goods and services combined rose nearly 80 percent from 2003 to 2008. In fact, the current weak dollar and continuing economic growth in Asia might be enough to carry us the rest of the way to the goal even if the president’s proposed National Export Initiative fails to get off the ground. That said, there are some concrete measures that should be taken now that will pay off in the longer term, most having to do with free trade.

``The president said he would “reform export controls” and “continue to shape” an agreement that opens global markets during the so-called Doha round of World Trade Organization negotiations. But those talks are in their ninth year, and a final accord is a long way off. For now, we have to look at trade as a two-way street: increasing our opportunities to export entails giving other countries greater access to the American market.

Mr. Cox's zinger to the liberal cavilers,

``We can complain as much as we want about China and other nations stifling domestic sales of our products, but our companies will get nowhere if the United States comes to the bargaining table with a something-for-nothing mindset."

All these has been presciently captured by Alvin and Heidi Toffler in Revolutionary Wealth who wrote,

``Where the Second Wave built ever more-towering- vertical heirarchies, the Third wave tends to flatten organizations and brings a shift to networks and many alternative structures.

``And these only begin the lenghty list of radical changes. Thus, manufacturing things we can touch-the core function of Second Wave economies-has increasingly become an easily commoditized, comparatively simple, low-value-added activity.

``By contrast, such intangible functions as financing, designing, planning, researching, marketing, advertising, distributing, managing, servicing and recycling are frequently difficult and costly. They add more value and generate more profit than metal bending and muscle work. The result is a profound change in the relations of different sectors in the economy."

For us, investments are shaped by the market dynamics and or forward looking consumer trends as the above.

Reasons Why The US Could Play A Major Role In Greece's Bailout

In last week's report Why The Greece Episode Means More Inflationism, we conjectured that perhaps the US taxpayers could play a tacit role in the Eurozone's efforts to bailout Greece.

Then came recent news reports which revealed that Wall Street seem to have had lent a hand in the shielding of Greece's liabilities via the use of currency swaps since Greece joined the EU.

According to the New York Times, ``In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means."

David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors suspects that perhaps there is more than meets the eye, (bold highlights mine)

``It appears that Greece clandestinely attempted to use currency swaps as a deferral technique to project their payment obligations into the future and to hide them. Greek officials claim to the contrary; they say the transactions were reported. But an initial scan of the reports that were used in the early part of this decade does not find them. Hmmmm?

``Let’s make this clearer for readers: the use of this type of swap accomplishes the movement of debt off the balance sheet and into the currency balances. There can be legitimate economic reasons for this type of transaction as an offset to trade flows. And the same transaction can be used for outright deception if the user wants to hide a rising debt ratio.

``Now an investigation is underway by Europe’s statistical office, Eurostat. News reports have also been confirmed that Greece has a history of using this allegedly deceptive technique in the past. We now know it was done in 2001 and was contemporaneous with other actions that Greece was taking so it could become the twelfth member of the Eurozone.

``It also appears that these transactions were arranged through Goldman Sachs and that subsequently GS hedged its position to a neutral one by shorting or constructively shorting Greek debt. Did Goldman act improperly? That now also is a subject of debate. Investigations are certainly coming. Witch-hunting about Goldman Sachs and their book of derivatives is very popular these days. We expect to see more of it on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

``There will be much EU political outcry about this transaction which currently is measured at 1 billion euro. The key question for markets revolves around whether or not this is a single event or if there are more such transactions that will be revealed in the books of Greece or other EU member states."

Based on the above, there could be three reasons that would prompt for the US via the US Federal Reserve to intervene:

one, Wall Street has more exposure (perhaps indirectly) to the Greek (PIIGS) than is publicly known or declared and

two, there could be official efforts to cover the tracks of Wall Street's subterfuge.

three, to ensure the US dollar hegemony (by ensuring the survival of Wall Street who serve prime agents of the Federal Reserve and their alternate egos in Europe)

Congressman Ron Paul raised the same concerns; (bold highlights mine)

``Is it possible that our Federal Reserve has had some hand in bailing out Greece? The fact is, we don’t know, and current laws exempt agreements between the Fed and foreign central banks from disclosure or audit.

``Greece is only the latest in a series of countries that have faced this type of crisis in recent memory. Not too long ago the same types of fears were mounting about Dubai, and before that, Iceland. Several other countries (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Latvia) are approaching crisis levels with public debt as well. Many have strong ties to Goldman Sachs and the case could easily be made that default could have serious implications for big US banking cartels. Considering the ties between the Fed and these big banks, it is not outlandish to wonder if the US taxpayer is secretly bailing out the entire world, country by country, even as our real unemployment tops 20 percent...

``This global financial crisis is a predictable result of secretive central banking and unsound fiat currency. Governments are entirely committed to this system of fiat money and fractional reserve banking for obvious reasons: it enables them to do what they love most, namely, spend hoards of money with near impunity. Without the limitations of sound money, governments will spend without limit. They will spend money to hire their cronies, pay off special interests, give out favors, create dependence and generally distract from the terrible job they do at their chief mandate, which is to protect the liberties of the people. Fiat money is a blank check to government, which is very dangerous, and we are witnessing the death throes of the system as the bills come due and the underlying capital is squandered away."

The ramifications of which appear to be headed in the direction of our much feared 'Mises Moment'.

Seeing Patterns Where None Exist

Below are good examples of a cognitive bias known as Clustering Illusions or seeing patterns where none exist.

Such presentations depends usually on the underlying biases of the commentators or analysts.

For example "bears" would use today's markets in comparison with that of the Great Depression of the 30s as shown below...

From Google charts

Whereas the "bulls" would use the 1970s as a counterexample.

chart from Businessinsider

But the fact is that there is little in common between the 1930s and today (e.g. gold standard versus today's fiat money, deposit insurance, prohibitions in Intestate banking or the McFadden Act & etc...) or between 1970s and today (e.g. China still a communist economy than a mixed economy, globalization, high inflation versus today's "suppressed" inflation) to suggest of a similar dynamic that could accrue to the same outcomes for the markets.

Essentially, this signifies as a logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc or that "correlation does not imply causation".

Importantly, aside from having different operating conditions, political actions (interventionism) during those days had been different in type and in degree, such that the distortions in the economic and financial system greatly varied.

So essentially whatever directions shapes the future will likely be due to "chance" more than actual "analogies" relative to the above examples.

Anyway, I found this "tight" correlation between copper/gold-S&P 500 chart to be quite interesting.

From Trader's Narrative

Although my suspicion is that the correlation between the two could likely be "new" in the sense that the decades of 1980s-2000s saw "opposing" directions between commodities, which had been in a grueling bear market, and the performance of the US stock market, which had boomed in those salad days or during the "great moderation".

Nevertheless, the point of the chart is to show of the bearish disposition of the current market actions, by an analyst who can be described as a perma bear, David Rosenberg.

But again, as earlier pointed out, for every example would be a counter-example. It all depends on the bias of the writers.

Emerging Local Currencies In The US Disproves The 'Liquidity Trap'

Deflation exponents tell us that deleveraging from overindebtedness will restrict demand for credit and cause a fall in consumption which leads to falling prices.

Further they allege that monetary policies will be ineffective to arrest this phenomenon which leads to a Keynesian "liquidity trap".

We say this is garbage.

Why? Empirical proof from the emergence of local currencies, which reportedly numbers nearly 100, is a manifestation that there hasn't been a fall in demand for goods or services or consumption.

This from Fox News, (all bold highlights mine)

``Today, there are close to 100 types of local currencies operating in the United States.

``While some currencies are true to their name and are backed by federal dollars, others are simply a record of hours worked by contributing “time bank” members. “Whenever you have a shortage of money, people look to invent their own medium of exchange,” said David Boyle, fellow of the New Economics Foundation and Author of "Money Matters."

``The earliest local payment system on record began in the 1930’s, which isn't surprising; historically, local currencies have been most popular during times of economic crisis, and the U.S. then was in the midst of the Great Depression."

``Today, the Community Exchange hours system has 450 members, though similar systems work with just 50 or more members. When one member does something for another, they get credit for the amount of time spent helping. Each member’s time is worth the same, whether they’re giving tax advice or cooking dinner.

``Because there is no set standard for what a local currency should be, many times the grassroots effort to start a program doesn’t gain the momentum it needs. The average success rate for local currency is around 20%, according to a study done by Professor Ed Collom at the University of Southern Maine, which looked at 82 such currencies.

So local currencies operate like an improved version of the barter system but is limited to the locality.

More from MSNBC, (all bold highlights mine)

``In most cases, these communities are simply looking to boost local commerce. The currency has to be spent in town, obviously, because it's worthless anywhere else. But a growing distrust of the U.S. dollar is also at work.

``When the Treasury prints billions to bail out banks and automakers, people look for alternatives. These folks may look nutty now, goes the quip, but wait till the dollar goes the way of the Argentine peso. Then you'll be exchanging a wheelbarrow of cash for a bay buck, local currency boosters say...

``At central Vermont's Onion River Exchange, services recently offered included basics such as haircuts but mostly oddities like puppet shows, trips to the dump and left-handed knitting. Among the service requests were a call for rawhide goat skins and a plea from someone named Pam, who "flushed a hair-catch thingy down the toilet and needs help getting it out."

Here's a list of community local currencies in the US.

So "shortage of money", "a growing distrust of the U.S. dollar" and "boost local commerce" hardly are signs of falling consumption, instead they reflect on the malaise plaguing the banking system.

GMU's Charles Rowley argues on the absurdity of the liquidity trap (hat tip: Cafe Hayek) [bold emphasis mine, italics his]

``The concept of the liquidity trap, as outlined by Keynes, and developed by his early disciples, is one aspect of the theory of liquidity preference. Liquidity preference is a theory of the demand for money. Individuals have a certain transactions and a certain precautionary preference for holding money over bonds, because of money’s property of liquidity. They have a speculative preference for holding money over bonds when their expectations are that interest rates are likely to rise, bringing down upon the holders of bonds significant reductions in the value of their bond portfolios.

``If this speculative fear is sufficiently high, the demand for money becomes infinite. In such circumstances, the monetary authority cannot lower interest rates on bonds by selling money in exchange for bonds on the open market. If this liquidity trap occurs under conditions of recession, the monetary authorities cannot stimulate the demand for investment by lowering bond rates of interest. In such circumstances, increasing government expenditures appears to be an attractive mechanism for returning the economy to full employment equilibrium. As Keynes emphasized, he knew of no such situation ever having occurred in the real world."

So has there been an extraordinary demand for money?

Again from Mr. Rowley,

``There is no evidence whatsoever that the demand for investment at current interest rates (incidentally Treasury notes with more than three years to maturity are nearer to 4 per cent than to zero in nominal terms, Mr. Krugman) is inadequate to move the economy to full employment equilibrium.

``Evidence suggests that small firms are desperate for loans from the banks at current interest rates, but cannot obtain them because the big banks will not lend. The big banks will not lend, not because they are are short of high-powered money (Bad Ben Bernanke has drenched the economy in high-powered money), but because their balance sheets are rock-bottom rotten and they are trying to use Bernanke money to bring their financial ratios back from insanely low levels."

Well, the reported shortages of money that has spurred the emergence of local community currencies seem to validate or corroborate this perspective. Moreover, inflationism could be another factor why people have indeed been looking for alternatives.

Global Foreign Direct Investments Down; US Still Dominates

Here's an update on world Foreign Direct Investments

From the Economist, (bold underscore mine)

``THE flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) fell by 39% in 2009 to just over $1 trillion, from a shade under $1.7 trillion in 2008, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. All kinds of investment—equity capital, reinvested earnings and intra-company loans—were affected by the downturn. Rich countries saw FDI inflows plunge by 41%, and foreign investment into developing countries fell by more than a third. Not every country was badly hit. FDI into China, where economic growth remained robust, declined by only 2.6%. Foreigners actually invested more in Germany and Italy last year than in 2008. Despite FDI plunging by 57% last year, America remained the world’s top investment destination."

Additional comments:

-Despite the broadbased downturn, the US remains the largest recipient of FDI. This demolishes the fallacious protectionist notion that emerging markets have been "stealing investments and jobs" from Americans. Not until the US turns into a Peronist Argentina or suffer from outsized or hyperinflation will this happen.

-While the BRICs, especially China, have indeed been seeing bigger share of the FDI pie, they have not been able to supplant FDIs in developed economies...at least, not yet.

-Basically, investments based on free trade is not a zero game that sees one party benefit at the expense of the other. Free trade seen in the light of globalization has generally a net positive effect.

To quote HSBC's Stephen Green in a recent interview with Wall Street Journal, ``globalization is past the point of no return." What's more, globalization "is not an ideology. It's a fact. It's a phenomenon." Despite what certain rich 20-something protesters might have you believe, "It's not as if some thinker has imposed it . . . It's a fact, a phenomenon very deeply rooted in the human spirit."

Instead, it is malinvestments shaped by bubble policies that has severe self-destructive impact to economies by distorting price signals which eventually results to capital consumption.

And worst, it is the mercantilistic proclivities to institute "protectionism" that limits consumer choices which overall imposes an adverse effect to the society. The Smoot-Hawley act which dramatically worsened the Great Depression of 1930s should serve as a grim reminder of the self inflicting harm which results from policy myopia.

Statistics Don't Reveal Extent Of The Evolution To The Information Age

Bespoke Invest gives a good account of the per industry weightings of the US S & P 500.

I think this conveys a very important message.

According to Bespoke Invest, (bold emphasis mine)

``Technology currently has the biggest weighting in the S&P 500 at 19.2%. This is the highest weighting the Tech sector has had since the Internet bubble burst in 2000. After falling all the way down to just 8.9% at the March 2009 lows, the Financial sector's weighting in the S&P 500 now ranks second at 14.4%. Health Care, Consumer Staples, Energy, and Industrials are the other four sectors with a weighting of more than 10%. The Consumer Discretionary sector is close to 10% at 9.8%. From 1998 to 2007, the Consumer Discretionary sector was bigger than the Consumer Staples sector. When the bear market hit in 2007, Consumer Staples overtook Consumer Discretionary, but the spread has tightened to about two percentage points recently. If the bull market continues, we'll likely see Discretionary overtake Staples once again. While the Materials sector gets a lot of attention in the media, especially because it has the gold stocks, it's important to remember that it only makes up 3.5% of the S&P 500. The Utilities sector is even bigger than Materials."

Taking a look at the charts of the S & P Information and Technology we notice that while indeed the sector has significantly outperformed it hasn't reacted in bubble like proportions similar to the late 1990s.

we can also see this in the behavior of the Nasdaq

What I am trying to say is that the contribution of the technology sector to the real economy could perhaps be more accurately reflected on the performance of S&P, however, such contribution may have been underrepresented by conventional statistical metrics.

Even during the aftermath of the dot.com bubble crash, the shift towards advancing high tech industries or high paying tech jobs has also been evident in the job market dynamics.

According to the CRA.org,

``Since 2000 (when trend data become available), there has been a shift away from low-wage jobs to high-wage jobs in the IT sector. The lower-paying IT jobs also have experienced higher unemployment rates and a greater number of job losses. These are the types of jobs that may show signs of being replaced by offshoring. However, the economy is in the midst of an unusual recovery: relatively fewer jobs are being created at the same time that average productivity growth is at the highest level recorded among post-World War II recoveries. This also appears to be playing a role in the lack of job growth in the IT sector."

``An industry-based definition of the IT sector shows a shift from lower-paid manufacturing jobs to higher-paid service jobs. In 1994, 33.4 percent of IT-sector employment were in services. In 2004, this had risen to 54.6 percent. Manufacturing jobs accounted for 70 percent of job losses in the IT sector from 2000 to 2004.

As Erik Brynjolfsson and Adam Saunders of the MIT Sloan writes, (bold highlights mine)

``The irony of the information age is that we know less about the sources of value in the economy than we did 25 years ago. GDP is a more accurate metric of value in industrial-age industries like steel or automobiles than in information industries, and can miss most of the value in information goods. However, there is one measure that economists have thought about for decades that may help us determine the value of these innovations: consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is the aggregate net benefit that consumers receive from using goods or services after subtracting the price they paid. While it can be difficult to measure directly, economists can infer consumer surplus using price experiments from purchase data, lab experiments or surveys. Consumer surplus can be enormous even if — in fact, especially if — the price is low or zero.

``Let’s go back to the recording industry. Suppose that for most people, the vast majority of the value of a CD comes from their three favorite songs on it. Those consumers will do much better paying $3 for those three songs on iTunes, rather than paying the $18.99 retail price for the CD. While most of the record company revenues disappear from GDP, consumer surplus increases enormously — but that amount is unmeasured. This is not a bug in the free market system. In fact, it is its essence. As Adam Smith noted more than 200 years ago, the invisible hand of competition drives producers to deliver ever more value to consumers at an ever lower cost. If the cost of producing a good is zero, then over time, the competition should drive the price to zero as well. The invisible hand has been particularly ruthless in information markets. As a result, consumer surplus has soared even if the contribution of information goods to GDP hasn’t."

In short, there is growing evidence that statistical GDP does understate the role of technology in the real economy.

A final note from Murray N. Rothbard,

``Technologically, history is indeed a record of progress; but morally, it is an up-and-down and eternal struggle between morality and immorality, between liberty and coercion. While no specific technical tool can in any way determine moral principles, the truth is the other way round: in order for even technology to advance, man needs at least a modicum of freedom to experiment, to seek the truth, to discover and develop the creative ideas of the individual. And remember, every new idea must originate in some one individual. Freedom is needed for technological advance; and when freedom is lost, technology itself decays and society sinks back, as in the Dark Ages, into virtual barbarism."

Freedom is progress.

Getting Ahead Of The Curve

``Actually, the Fed is a public-private partnership, a coalition of large banks who are the owners working with the blessing of the government, which appoints its managers. In some way, it is the worst of both the corporate and the government worlds, with each side providing a contribution to an institution that has been horribly detrimental to American prosperity. In any case, William Greider is exactly correct that the advent of the Fed represented "the beginning of the end of laissez-faire." It turned the entire money system over to public management on behalf of political causes.” Dr. Ron Paul End the Fed

Author, economic professor and prolific econlib blogger Arnold Kling writes, `` The Fed has changed from a central bank to a piggy bank. Any economist who tries to interpret Fed policy from the standpoint of economic theory is playing a fool's game.”

Exactly. That’s what been we’ve been saying all along.

In a world where markets (especially in the US) have essentially been artificially patched up by different government measures and policies, such as lender, liquidity provider, buyer, investor, market maker, guarantor, spender, and other assorted roles of last resorts, repeated attempts to interpret these actions into conventional fundamentals (corporate fundamentals or economic theory) seems like a mug’s game-market actions haven’t been playing out most of its traditional roles.

Figure 1: Minyanville: US Earnings Volatility!

As you can see earnings volatility today in the US have spiked to the levels of 1930s due to increased “leverage” and “inflation”.

Kick The Can Down The Road

Yet I’ve been asked how should we get ahead of the curve? My reply would be simple: we should think out of the box.

Many if not most of the mainstream’s favorite experts- the financial or economic Op-ed writers, the academe bloggers turned opinion maker, celebrity gurus and etc.-have essentially misread the markets in 2009, yet are still patronized by many and in fact glorified by media.

Gullible followers fail to realize that for these talking heads, the cost of being wrong had been inconsequential.

Inaccurate analysis or misplaced forecasts don’t cost them their jobs or that they don’t even lose a dime, that’s because many of these so-called experts are even hardly invested in the markets. For most, they practice what popularly is known as being ensconced in the proverbial “ivory tower” thinking or from wikipedia.org “pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life.” They mistakenly believe that models can substitute for human actions.

Yet these experts remain trustworthy sources of information because they provide mostly entertainment value- by confirming or echoing on the beliefs of the audiences. But what makes them even more believable is that their arguments has been embellished by scientism, such that, when a hunch is backstopped by math models, they seem intellectually credible, even if they have been repeatedly falsified. So it is not being accurate that matters but feeding on popular but mostly “delusional” creeds.

Worst, the avid spectators can’t seem to tell between propaganda masquerading as analysis from an objective and independent investigation.

For instance, many have been made to believe by the authorities and the mainstream that today’s collective policies have been “successful” in mending the markets.

It’s all a matter of perspective.

For us, it is known as a children’s game called “kick the can down the road”; for the short term yes, markets appear to be cosmetically pacified, but no, imbalances have merely transferred and deferred which eventually would unravel anew in a far more worst degree.

In short, merely delaying the day of reckoning does not solve the crisis. Obviously the laws of nature will ultimately compel adjustments overtime (see figure 2).

Figure 2: MoneyandMarkets.com: Bust Getting Bigger

In the same way as it recently had.

US government policies aimed at cushioning the losses in the dot.com bust (left window where loses had been estimated at $6.5 trillion) have led to a bigger housing bubble and the attendant larger “doubling” of losses from the recent bust (right window- $15.5 trillion).

And it is of no wonder why many who concur with this present day government actions seem paradoxically afraid of the future. They are allured to short term unsustainable fixes in the same way as drug addicts are temporarily satisfied by the infusion of toxic substances.

Such incoherence exposes the fatuousness of their beliefs- turning stones into bread by the magic of inflation. Yet no matter the realization of such chronically flawed principle, they embrace these as if it is an act of faith.

When Everyone Thinks Alike, Then Nobody Is Thinking

Bemedalled World War II US General George S. Patton once remarked, ``If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”

IF in the present environment, markets are shaped by political action, how does one get ahead of the mainstream?

For us the answer is by comprehending on the thought process that governs the mainstream.

Think of it, there are 3 research divisions of the US Federal Reserve which has a vast army of 450 economists from where about half of them of are Ph.D. economists!

So common sense tells us if we think in the line of the mainstream, 450 economists with their panoply of computer aided econometric models would have easily beaten us to the punch. That’s assuming if they’re right.

Yet, these do not include the scores of economists that are employed in the Fed’s 12 regional banks.

In addition, the tentacles of the Fed network are way far reaching more than what the public expects.

In essence, the US government, particularly the US Federal Reserve, influences or shapes its own public image (and of course ideas).

How? Through several factors:

1. Self-publication or by influencing the materials that are published in mainstream Journals

Cato’s Steve Hanke writes, ``One of the reasons the Federal Reserve gets so much good press is that it’s publishing most of it itself” (italics mine)

Mr. Hanke quotes Professor Gordon Tullock: ``Milton Friedman has pointed out that one of the basic reasons for the good press the Federal Reserve Board has had for many years has been that the Federal Reserve Board is the source of 98% of all writing on the Federal Reserve Board.” (bold emphasis mine)

Mr. Hanke also cites the work of Professor Larry White, ``In 2002, 74% of the articles on monetary policy published by U.S. economists in U.S.-edited journals appeared in journals published by the Fed, or were authored (or co-authored) by Fed staff economists.”

So the predominance of Fed friendly papers makes it appear that their methodology constitutes as the predominant and most acceptable thought.

2. Outsource jobs and offer privileges

Aside from having a say on the articles published on mainstream economic journals, Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post says that the US Federal Reserve has outsourced many of its work to the academia and has equally bestowed intangible benefits and privileges to them.

From Mr. Grim, ``The Fed also doles out millions of dollars in contracts to economists for consulting assignments, papers, presentations, workshops, and that plum gig known as a "visiting scholarship." A Fed spokeswoman says that exact figures for the number of economists contracted with weren't available. But, she says, the Federal Reserve spent $389.2 million in 2008 on "monetary and economic policy," money spent on analysis, research, data gathering, and studies on market structure; $433 million is budgeted for 2009… Being on the Fed payroll isn't just about the money, either. A relationship with the Fed carries prestige; invitations to Fed conferences and offers of visiting scholarships with the bank signal a rising star or an economist who has arrived.” (all bold emphasis mine)

So the academe is not only paid by the Federal Reserve but latently coaxed into writing articles or papers in the Fed’s light.

Mr. Grim also cites a research by Robert Auerbach, a former investigator with the House banking committee who apparently scrutinized on the operating network employed by the Fed. Mr. Grim adds, ``Auerbach found that in 1992, roughly 968 members of the AEA designated "domestic monetary and financial theory and institutions" as their primary field, and 717 designated it as their secondary field. Combining his numbers with the current ones from the AEA and NABE, it's fair to conclude that there are something like 1,000 to 1,500 monetary economists working across the country. Add up the 220 economist jobs at the Board of Governors along with regional bank hires and contracted economists, and the Fed employs or contracts with easily 500 economists at any given time. Add in those who have previously worked for the Fed -- or who hope to one day soon -- and you've accounted for a very significant majority of the field.” (all bold emphasis mine)

3. Influencing public policies through the mainstream networks

One of the advantages of the Fed’s employment of a large external network is to be able to put pressure on public policies that favors its interests.

Huffington Post’s Mr. Grim addresses such conflict of interest issues by citing anew Robert Auerbach work, ``Auerbach concludes that the "problems associated with the Fed's employing or contracting with large numbers of economists" arise "when these economists testify as witnesses at legislative hearings or as experts at judicial proceedings, and when they publish their research and views on Fed policies, including in Fed publications." (all bold emphasis mine)

As in the case of the recent reappointment of Ben Bernanke as the Chairman for the US Federal Reserve, when politicians warned the public that a failure to extend his tenure would result to doomsday, you now know how the politics behind the Federal Reserve operates.

Profiting From Folly

But of course the goals of the investors and policymakers are different. The goals of the investors is to profit from making the right decisions in the marketplace while the bureaucracy and their externally based affiliates are no less than vying to eternally meet the ever elusive “appropriate” policies in response to the changes in the market.

As Professor Antony Mueller rightly observes, ``This challenge is quite different from textbook models, with their neat separation between a definite object, a tested theory, and a neutral observer. It is one thing to do academic economic research; it is quite a different task to decide and to act on the basis of incomplete, contradictory, and largely false data.

``It is hardly a wonder that Bernanke and his team are in a constant panic. The economic data they are so eager to get in order to make "rational" decisions are inaccurate, inconclusive, and always false: at the very moment when the data are gathered, economic constellations have already changed, often quite drastically.”

Like many terminally ill people who desperately would seek cures by resorting to quack medicines, the same applies to bureaucracy. Professor Arnold Kling, a former Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae officer, notes that quack medicine appear to have an inelastic demand in spite of “demonstrable failures”, that’s because ``People who are really sick tend to cling to unreasonable hopes” notes Professor Kling.

Prof. Kling germanely observes that, ``decision-makers with a lot of power are desperately needy for scientific solutions in the same way that individuals with serious afflictions are desperately needy for remedies. As a result, decision-makers fall for models the way sick individuals fall for quack medicine.” (bold emphasis mine)

In other words, the best way to think out of the box is to bet against unreasonable hope of the mainstream, which has been mostly borne from the market interventionist policies instituted by a presumptuous government desperate for immediate remedies.

And this means to quote Warren Buffett, ``Look at market fluctuations as your friend rather than your enemy; profit from folly rather than participate in it.”

As an addendum, I’d like to add that this clearly looks like a case where taxpayer money is being ceaselessly drained in a seeming abyss of “sunk costs”- where the government spends more to sustain or promote its wellbeing than to serve the interest of the public.

Lastly, as for mainstream-ism applied to the local stockmarket; many market participants are enticed with rumor based “action” than from practicing prudence or from positioning on a risk-reward tradeoff. Hence most of the vulnerable participants subscribe to “action” based stimulating sources of information.

Well, since markets are mainly about profits and losses, people usually get what they deserve.