Monday, August 11, 2014

Phisix: Will the Global Black Swan Be Triggered by Economic Sanctions?

Over time, markets will do extraordinary, even bizarre, things. A single, big mistake could wipe out a long string of successes. We therefore need someone genetically programmed to recognize and avoid serious risks, including those never before encountered. Certain perils that lurk in investment strategies cannot be spotted by use of the models commonly employed today by financial institutions. Warren Buffett- 2006 Letter to Shareholders.

In this issue:

Phisix: Will the Global Black Swan Be Triggered by Economic Sanctions?
-OFWs in Libya Exposes on the Quality of the so-called Economic Boom
-The Toxicity of Overconfidence
-Another BSP Communications ‘Bait and Switch’?
-Credit Expansion as the Source of Inflation
-Stagflation Prediction Partly Met, IMF’s Straddle the Fence and the Peso Disconnect
-The BIR Assails Domestic Financial Community
-Global Black Swan: Nuclear War or Economic Sanctions or Both?

Phisix: Will the Global Black Swan Be Triggered by Economic Sanctions?

OFWs in Libya Exposes on the Quality of the so-called Economic Boom

OFWs caught in the crossfire in war ravaged Libya caught national attention to hug the headlines during the week. Unknown to most, the news carried with it an incisive latent perspective about the state of the Philippine economy. 

The Philippine government ordered a mandatory evacuation of OFWs in Libya. Surprisingly to populist politics, only a few of the OFWs submitted to the government edict.

This striking commentary from a Philippine authority on the sentiment of Libyan based OFWs[1]: (bold mine)
Despite the danger, many Filipinos in Libya have ignored the government’s order for mandatory evacuation, DFA spokesman Charles Jose told reporters on Monday.

“The usual reason we hear from them is that they would rather take the chance. They think they have greater chances of surviving the war [there] than of surviving uncertainty [without jobs] here,” Jose said.

Why striking? Because the OFWs are simply saying that they have little or no choice but to keep their livelihood or suffer in hunger if they return home. This reverberates, if not reinforces, with self-rated poverty surveys where the average resident presently has considered themselves as becoming “poorer”. Such sentiment seems to signify grassroots account of real economic conditions. 

Yet look at the difference between what OFWs and self-rated poverty surveys reveal compared to what experts, politicians and media say.

One example is from the IMF’s recent assessment of the Philippines (bold mine)[2]: Strong GDP growth in recent years has translated into improved social conditions. Growth has become less employment intensive, but still reduced the elevated under- and unemployment rates. Poverty incidence, although declining, remains high, and a large share of the population remains vulnerable to falling into poverty as a result of natural disasters and other shocks

As a side note, despite their army of experts, the IMF has a pathetic track record in forecasting, not only have they botched on their predictions on Greece, lately they even gave Bulgarian banking system a clean bill of health two weeks before two massive bank runs[3] that forced the EU to a rescue. I wouldn’t put my money on what the IMF says.

So why has the choice of OFWs been reduced to either “surviving the war” or “surviving uncertainty”, if indeed social conditions have improved from the 7% statistical GDP in 2013?

Have OFWs not heard of the magical “boom” here, which ironically has been well advertised both domestically and internationally? Why the ocean of variance in the sentiment, the claims of the government relative to surveys, as well as, patent disparities in the statistics[4]—between government poverty and self-diagnosed poverty? In short, why the stunning disconnect?

This marks a fundamental example of the evolving divergence between the top-down viewpoint vis-à-vis bottom-up conditions. One previous example I have shown has been how experts and the public defines inflation[5].

Another important dimension from the news is that the lifeblood of the Libyan healthcare system has been on OFWs (mostly from Philippines). So aside from pay and career, OFWs appears to have found some other psychological profits from their work; perhaps through Maslow’s hierarchy—a sense of belonging, self-esteem or even self-actualization. In other words, the human factor has prompted for the OFW’s defiance of the government where their choice can be read as ‘die as heroes or die as starved yet forgotten pawns of politics’[6]. And by disregarding populist politics, the OFWs have asserted their individual sovereignty.

And by failing to account for such human ‘individual’ factor, populist “feel good, noble intention and vote generating” politics thrust to “bring-the-OFWs-home” has utterly failed.

Why is this important? Because, in a nutshell, the Libyan OFW episode brings to light the quality of the so-called economic boom. This accentuates signs of the deepening misperception by the cheery consensus that has backed the prevailing conviction supporting today’s one way trade in the financial markets.

When reality begins to shatter such forceful expectations, then trouble lies ahead especially for those blinded by overconfidence.

The Toxicity of Overconfidence

Overconfidence breeds misconceptions and delusions. As professor of finance and author John Nofsinger writes[7]
People can be overconfident. Psychologists have determined that overconfidence causes people to overestimate their knowledge, underestimate risks, and exaggerate their ability to control events. Does overconfidence occur in investment decision making? Security selection is a difficult task. It is precisely this type of task in which people exhibit the greatest degree of overconfidence.
This means overconfidence can be fatal. 

Could the lamentable fate of former Brazil Billionaire Eike Batista whose fortune $30+ billion in 2012, who then has been the Forbes seventh wealthiest in the world two years ago, to become negative net worth today been mainly through overconfidence[8]? Imagine $30 billion down the drain in just two years? Most have been oriented to think that wealth can only be accumulated, but Mr. Batista’s crash has been nothing more than horrific.

Warren Buffett once said “risks comes from not knowing what you are doing”. I would rather say every crisis reveals that a great scad of smart people have opted to “not know” for many reasons such as dogmatism, dedication to math models, preference for instant gratification, social pressure or groupthink, selective perception due to personal biases, sublime attachment to interest group/s benefiting from current policies and more, but overconfidence could be more of a compelling factor. 

This means that in investing while there are times where one should go with the crowd, there are times required to go against the crowd. From a historical perspective, the crowd is ALWAYS wrong during MAJOR inflection points. The reason inflection point exists is exactly because of the extreme nature of sentiment. Of course, sentiment is never a standalone force. It is a necessary but insufficient factor. The path to overconfidence has always been established by fundamental forces.

For instance when boom times lead to an overconfident crowd, overborrowing in support of excessive speculation or overspending or both, builds up risks on the balance sheets of levered entities. So when economic reality upends the overconfidence that has been founded on popular superstitions, such fragilities simply unravels.

My favorite iconoclast Nassim Nicholas Taleb and partner Mark Spitznagel explains how debt hides fragility[9] (bold mine):
Debt has a nasty property: it is highly treacherous. A loan hides volatility as it does not vary outside of default, while an equity investment has volatility but its risks are visible. Yet both have similar risks. Thus debt is the province of both the overconfident borrower who underestimates large deviations, and of the investor who wants to be deluded by hiding risks. Then there are products such as complex derivatives, which in the name of “modern finance” make the system even more fragile.
So when financial markets exhibit intensifying signs of excessive buildup in sentiment in a single direction buttressed by developments in fundamental factors, then it is time to take a distance from crowd. As legendary investor John Templeton duly advised: Bull-markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria.

As a lowly money manager, who survives from the markets also from my direct exposure, which means I have embedded ‘skin in the game’, I write not only to inform but to educate and share the conduct of my investing affairs discreetly through this outlook. 

I also do not write with the intent of entertaining or to bloviate in order get populist plaudits or to confirm on the biases of the speculating crowd or community. I contravene or ethically oppose the Keynesian ‘sound banker’ approach of hiding under the skirt of crowd when the mess surfaces which means that I write with my conscience.
 
I keep to my heart the most precious legacy of investing wisdom from the great value investor Benjamin Graham:
Have the courage of your knowledge and experience. If you have formed a conclusion from the facts and if you know your judgment is sound, act on it - even though others may hesitate or differ. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right
And unlike most of my contemporaries, I practice what I preach. 

For me, identifying profitable opportunities comes with the imperative of evaluation of the risk environment, this applies to whether one positions for the long term (‘value investors’) or medium term mostly trend-following (growth) investors or even for scalping/momentum traders/punters. Again another gem from Ben Graham[10]: The essence of investment management is the management of risk, not the management of returns

Transitioning market phases implies that there will be time for aggressive or moderate or defensive positioning. Conditions today suggest of the latter. Remember, time is the investor’s real best friend.

Lastly, I neither subscribe nor attempt to share with my clients or audiences snake oil trading (or pseudo hedging) techniques, sought after by people who think with their eyes or who are after instant gratification.

Another BSP Communications ‘Bait and Switch’?

clip_image002

The unfolding predicament in Libya by OFWs and self-assessed poverty will even become more pronounced.

Last July Statistical consumer inflation swelled to 4.9%. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas once again deviously blames this on weather.

From the BSP[11]: The higher July headline inflation rate was driven mainly by the higher prices of food. Food inflation accelerated as most food items particularly rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk, fruits, sugar, oils, and corn posted higher prices due to tight domestic supply conditions triggered by recent weather-related production disruptions. Meanwhile, non-food inflation held steady as the increases in electricity rates, tuition fees, jeepney fares, and hospital services were counterbalanced by the slower price increases in domestic petroleum products (i.e., gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and LPG).

The Philippine consumer price inflation chart (right window) doesn’t match with the BSP’s statement. Philippine CPI began its ascent in September 2013 two months prior to Typhoon (Haiyan) Yolanda which devastated mostly Region 8 in November 8, 2013. Philippine CPI has now reached 2011 highs. Besides the only direct connection between Typhoon Yolanda and the economy has been the coconut industry[12].

In addition, if tight supply has been the problem, then the solution would be to allow imports to offset any supply imbalance. Yet given that statistical price inflation continues to move upwards during the last 10 months, which has intensified since the advent of 2014, it is quite obvious that either the government didn’t permit imports to cover the deficits which has mostly been in food but has become widespread even from statistics derived from a heavily regulated environment or that supply shocks have only been aggravating circumstances or symptoms from an undisclosed disease.

Next why did the BSP raise interest rates last week which they immediately implemented[13], if such has only been a supply side problem? What has raising interest rates got to do with bringing in supplies into the market? Or will increasing interest rates induce more imports? How? And why the BSP’s seemingly desperate attempts to curtail inflation via 5 successive policies—2 reserve requirements, SDA rates, bank stress test and lately official rates—in 5 months? The BSP leadership leaves the public groping in the dark 

So whether it is about facts or about policy actions, the BSP’s communications appear to become more abstruse, increasingly inconsistent and non-transparent. This is hardly positive, as this should raise suspicions.

As reminder, in order to promote domestic demand, the BSP in 2009 made a grand pirouette in line with most of central banks around the world to shield their respective economies from a contagion from a financial meltdown via zero bound rates. Does the BSP think that frontloading expenditures through the creation of money from thin air via bank credit expansion or in the words of the BSP chief “counter-cyclical support to aggregate demand in the form of expansionary fiscal and monetary policies”[14] will not impact prices? Is the BSP blind to demand and supply curves? Does the BSP believe in free lunches?

As one can see Philippine statistical price inflation reared its ugly head when the BSP unleashed the inflation Godzilla via a 30++% month money supply growth rates in July 2013 (left window). Because monetary inflation has lagging effects, the CPI response came later. I would further deduce that the 30+% money growth has been a manifestation of the accumulation of inflation pressures from the earlier phase of credit expansion combined with the SDA policy of 2013. In short, the SDA policy of 2013 became the outlet valve for the simmering inflation pressures that has amassed overtime.

Let me add to the BSP chief’s words then “Maintaining an expansionary monetary policy stance to the extent that the inflation outlook allows, could support market confidence and assure households and businesses that risks to macro-stability are being addressed decisively”. Well can blowing bubbles be seen and interpreted as “risks to macro-stability are being addressed decisively”? Or is macro-stability risk being ignored decisively due to unstated or undeclared political objectives?

Credit Expansion as the Source of Inflation

Central bank induced credit expansion means injecting fresh spending power into the economic stream. If the supply side fails to anticipate the surge in spending stream, then a supply shock will happen. This is what we are seeing today and this is what the BSP has been publicly attributing as factors responsible for inflation.

Yet additional demand unmet by supply growth will mean imbalances expressed through higher prices. So the government will need to address the growth in demand with more imports. But additional imports will extrapolate to strains on the trade balance which will impact the currency, through a weaker peso.

So the problem generated by credit expansion can only multiply. And the solution will be to reverse it.

But credit expansion also means that producers reallocating resources to capital intensive (high order) industries.

Since the Philippines has been seen as a consumption story, the direction of investments gravitated on these areas, particularly to the property sector mostly catering to the highly touted consumer, the shopping malls, residential condos or housing projects, hotel and restaurants, casinos.

Moreover since massive flows of funds and resources had been diverted to these popular bubble areas, which implies of overconsumption of resources, at the expense of the other industries, like agriculture, the dearth of investments and consumption of resources in the latter has contributed to supply side constrains which have now been expressed as consumer price inflation.

As for the former which has imbibed on most of the resources, the eventual outcome will be an oversupply. Signs of oversupply may have already emerged. As noted last week, the latest report from Global Property Guide indicated that Manila has ‘ghost cities’ or really more of ghost condos rather than the hyperbole of ‘cities’. Such are examples of how distortions of the pricing mechanism by inflationism engender malinvestments.

Yet most of these have been financed by debt. And debt from the supply side has growth disturbingly faster than real demand or even statistical economic growth. So massive misallocation of resources combined with rapid growth in debt relative to demand or economic growth makes the entire aggregate demand growth template unsustainable. This has been the cornerstone of the Philippine economic boom; a boom that has been revealing signs of reversal.

Rising price inflation means that resources or savings have been insufficient to finance projects established as profitable only at low price inflation levels and at low interest rates. For instance, for the supply side, rising price inflation will translate to project cost overruns and increasing overheads in the face of reduced demand from both consumers and producers.

In addition, for entities with access to credit in the formal banking sector, whom has sharply increased the level of debt absorption over the years, implies greater balance sheet risks when interest rates move higher.

The current increase in official rates still means negative real rates environment. When real rates move to positive, real debt levels will also increase, thereby increasing the burden of debt servicing.

For an economy whose statistical growth has become debt dependent, reduced debt levels will first temper down profitability and growth, and eventually expose on the degree of resource misallocations through the markets.

As you can see, aggregate demand quasi-boom policies bring about price disruptions, economic discoordination and malinvestments.

Stagflation Prediction Partly Met, IMF’s Straddle the Fence and the Peso Disconnect

Well the BSP’s current inflation predicament I have predicted years ago.

While I was still in the bullish camp as the effects of negative real rates remain benign I wrote[15]: Also, given the combination of the currentopwhich remains far above the interest rate, coupled with the negative real interest rate outlook, suggests that the Philippines continues to operate on a loose monetary inflation stoking environment.

By late 2012 I became concerned over the far aggressive rate of credit expansion, I wrote[16]:
Once price inflation accelerates through food and energy channels, which is likely to be accentuated by current easy money policies, and where stagflation becomes a clear and present threat, statistical economic growth, like a bubble, will simply pop. Then, the BSP will be in a state of panic. The public will discover that the emperor has no clothes
Oops.

By imposing 5 policies in 5 months, the BSP seem to have already shown incipient signs of desperation if not panic, even when statistical price inflation has been supposedly at the upper range of their target at 4.9% last July. Why? Because real inflation figures have been alot higher than statistical numbers say? Because some influential pressure groups, perhaps outside the Bank of International Settlement’s warnings[17], may have been cognizant of dangers or if not imperiled by effects of the BSP’s policies?

Yet the BSP’s reaction comes along with, as noted earlier[18] “the more than doubling of the growth rates of the real estate consumer NPLs in the 1Q 2014 vis-à-vis the average of the last three quarters of 2013 can be juxtaposed to the breathtaking 8.95% 1Q 2014 spike in the prices of 3 bedroom condominium units in Makati the cresting of money supply growth rates also in Q1 2014, the intensifying official inflation rates and the below consensus expectations of 5.7% 1Q 2014 GDP growth rates.”

Has anyone from the mainstream seen this outbreak of inflation? Most experts or talking heads see inflation like a pet in a cage.

Oh by the way, remember the sanguine quote above by the IMF on the Philippines in their press release? Well the IMF actually has straddled the fence to ensure that they can’t be lambasted for being blind.

First the IMF notes of the external risk[19]: This favorable outlook could be buffeted by external and domestic events. Abrupt exit from exceptionally loose monetary policies abroad, a sharp slowdown in China or other emerging markets, or a major geopolitical incident could impact global or regional trade and capital flows and adversely affect the Philippine economy.

Now the punchline (bold mine): On the domestic front, rapid credit growth or a disproportionate flow of resources to the property sector could boost short-term growth but heighten volatility thereafter, impacting over­leveraged households and corporates.

I don’t know how the IMF defines “rapid credit growth or a disproportionate flow of resources” but for me, such seeming fence sitter’s word of caution has been descriptive of what has already been transpiring, specifically “boost short-term growth but heighten volatility thereafter”. Let me break it down: 2013’s 7% growth represents “boost short-term growth” while rising property NPLs, record growth in condo prices, ghost condos, price inflation and blatant overvaluations of asset prices levels can be read as “heighten volatility thereafter”, although ‘thereafter’ is today!

The point is the IMF, like many other global political or mainstream institutions or establishments, CANNOT deny the existence of bubbles anymore. So their recourse has been to either downplay on the risks or put an escape clause to exonerate them when risks transforms into reality which is the IMF position.

As for inflation outlook, unlike the IMF which sees inflation from a neo-Keynesian output gap version of the Phillips curve, with hardly inflation in the context of Milton Friedman’s “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”, for me for as long as bank credit expansion is sustained from which these will circulate in the economy as artificial demand and which will revealed in money supply growth, then price inflation will continue to rise even beyond the BSP’s moving goalpost.

However, as in the case today, money supply growth appears to be plateauing, this comes as the rate of growth in bank credit expansion seems to have also decelerated. This may be because much of the credit expansion could be used to pay off existing debt instead of capital expansion programs. And this is even before the increase in official rates at the end of July. If such trend is sustained then inflationary pressures down the road will ease but statistical economy growth will also vastly underperform. And slower growth amidst high debt levels will give rise to credit burdens of leveraged institutions and or individuals, or in the words of the IMF, “impacting over­leveraged households and corporates”.

The Peso vis-à-vis the US dollar fell by .82% this week. However the Peso remains up for the year, which curiously comes in the face of rising price inflation. This is another sign of a fantastic detachment between financial markets and the real economy.

The government may for the meantime succeed at the massaging of prices at the financial markets, resort to statistical masquerade or publicity gimmicks. But eventually economic forces will ventilate on the accreted imbalances from all these manipulation of the markets and the economy. It’s just a matter of a not so distant time.

Yet the BSP’s recent actions have begun to reflect on all these.

With 2Q GDP growth due to be announced possibly in the last week of August, it is a wonder how the BSP will respond to data.

The BIR Assails Domestic Financial Community

Last week, the domestic financial community, which reportedly includes 9 of the most influential business groups, as well as, the banking and capital market, supposedly protested a new tax ruling which requires “the submission of an alphabetical list (alphalist) of payees of income payments subject to withholding taxes”[20]. The community said that the new rule may result to capital flight. The new ruling would affect dividends which, if not compliant with BIR directives, will be taxed at 30% instead of 10%.

I am with the financial community on this. Such senseless arbitrary new ruling will not only cause capital flight but put a barrier on business creation and investments, thereby adversely influencing economic growth and increasing poverty levels. If such program gets implemented and would result to economic deprivation will these bureaucrats be held responsible and prosecuted for policy failures? The answer is NO, so they go about tossing more and more fatal totalitarian decrees at the expense of everyone.

Yet as one could observe, the BIR has been relentlessly tightening the dragnet on the economy with aim of shanghaiing more resources from the productive sector.

Bizarrely, the financial community hardly appears to have seen this coming. The public lynching of doctors, the assault on the informal economy and many more has long served as the proverbial writings on the wall. Yet facetiously too, the financial industry remains sanguine over the financial markets and the economy. And as even more sign of oxymoron, at the day this article was published the Phisix zoomed by over 100 points or by about 1.5% mostly on local buying!

Think of it, threats of capital flight in the face of rampaging stocks would seem like a bait-and-switch, how do you think this will be effective in persuading the BIR commissioner??? Here is a guess; a full-fledged bear market will force the BIR chief to stand down. Yet this bear market will come with or without a change in the BIR ruling.

And secondarily, this eccentric pushing up of stocks in the face of government assault on the industry is one splendid example of blindness from overconfidence. How do you square the growing risk from a capital flight due to a repressive tax edict with frenetic bidding up of stocks? More confiscation by the government of investor’s resources equals more earnings growth? How fabulous!

And alongside this news, the BIR commissioner reportedly wants to remove or exempt the tax agency from standardization of salary levels[21]. The BIR chief wants to change the organization’s structure from rule based to arbitrary based. Doing so, allows even more internal politicization of the tax agency and the appointments of favored officers.

It’s sad to see how productive capital has already been wasted from current feel good programs, but it is even direr to see the suffocation of the domestic economy just to appease the whims of these self-righteous political agents.

It’s no crisis time, yet the government has been drooling for more funds and attempting to extract these by harassing more and more of the private sector.

What happens when the economic version of Typhoon Yolanda makes a landfall?

India’s Central Bank’s Rajan Warns of 1930s Collapse, US Treasury’s TBAC Warns of De-Risking

I have been saying that current environment has been prompting officials and the establishment to admit to the existence of bubbles. Except for the Bank of International Settlements, much of the warnings have functioned as an escape hatch perhaps intended to relieve authorities of the responsibility in the prospects of a financial-economic meltdown.

Well last week when I referred to China, I said ‘epic bubble will lead to epic collapse’.

Here is one central banker, India’s Central Bank Governor Raghuram Rajan, a Chicago School alumnus and formerly the chief economist of the IMF, who recently elevated the prospects of the risks of an ‘epic collapse’ by referring to the GREAT DEPRESSION.

Governor Rajan decries the beggar-thy-neighbor policies being implemented by global monetary authorities which translates to a lack of coordination, that for him, elevates the risks a 1930 scenario

From the Wall Street Journal Real Times Economics Blog (bold mine)[22]: We are taking a greater chance of having another crash at a time when the world is less capable of bearing the cost,” said Mr. Rajan in an interview with the Central Banking Journal. A sudden shift in asset prices could happen in a variety of ways, Mr. Rajan said. The most obvious route would be as a result of investors chasing higher yields at a time when they believe central bank policies will protect them against a fall in prices. They put the trades on even though they know what will happen as everyone attempt to exit positions at the same time – there will be major market volatility,” said Mr. Rajan. A clear symptom of the major imbalances crippling the world’s financial market is the over valuation of the euro, Mr. Rajan said.

Just a reminder; these quotes should not be interpreted as an ‘appeal to authority’, the economic theory of business cycles have been enough to prove the case of bubbles.

However, my citations of public authorities have been meant to point out how bubbles have not only been in the radar screens of authorities, but seem to have reached a state of clear and present danger for some like the BIS or RBI’s Governor Rajan. The difference is that public authorities appear to be directionless on how to approach or deal with them. So outside the BIS or RBI’s Rajan, the rest treat them as an escape hatchet. Again my analogy for this is “Yes I recognize the problem of addiction but a withdrawal syndrome would even be more cataclysmic”.

Yet the buck doesn’t stop here.

A member of the US treasury Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (TBAC) composed of US banks and investors in a recent presentation warned of the risks of a massive de-risking due to Fed policies that has generated severe complacency in the marketplace, forced pension to extract yields to fulfill of return requirements and yield chasing based on orthodox risk models.

From the Financial Times[23] (bold mine): “Against [an] environment of low vol[atility] and low returns, the only way to achieve the same return targets is to take on more risk,” TBAC said in its presentation. Assets invested into hedge funds, which typically undertake riskier strategies, have ballooned to $2.8tn in the second quarter of this year, up from about $1.75tn just before the financial crisis, TBAC said. Meanwhile conservative investors such as pension funds are still trying to reach an average return target of a little less than 8 per cent, at a time when yields on benchmark US Treasuries are at 2.45 per cent. Because banks and investors incorporate volatility into their internal risk management models, there is a chance that suppressed markets are creating a feedback loop that amplifies further risk-taking, TBAC noted. The “value-at-risk” models used by most large Wall Street banks and investors typically incorporate volatility data to try to calculate how much a trading portfolio might be expected to lose in a given day with a given probability. With volatility drifting lower and lower in recent years, these models are spitting out extremely small chances of investors sustaining large losses, allowing Wall Street to assume additional risk without violating its own internal risk management standards. “VaR-based analysis leads to self-reinforcing loops as low volatility causes models to recommend scaling up risk,” TBAC said in its presentation. “An unexpected increase in volatility might come from broad-based selling of assets wanting to de-risk in front of a turn of policy.”

Again these are mainstream articles excerpting speeches or presentations of authorities from political institutions or the establishment. It’s pretty clear that we are seeing a convergence of worries.

Denial of bubbles wouldn’t remove its risks.

As English writer Aldous Leonard Huxley once penned, “Facts do not cease to exist because it is ignored.” I call such bubble denials as the Aldous Huxley syndrome.

Global Black Swan: Nuclear War or Economic Sanctions or Both?

Unless one has been hiding under the stone, it’s been quite clear that there has been a flare up in the accounts of wars around the globe.

Aside from the civil war in Libya, which has jeopardize domestic OFWs, and also the ongoing civil war in Syria, other wars include the US financed invasion by the Israel government of the Palestine held Gaza[24], the Northern Iraq offensive by the Jihadist Sunni led ISIS, supposedly financed by American ally Saudi Arabia and Qatar where the US has paradoxically joined foe Iran in defending the besieged Iraq government via air strikes which began last Friday[25]. The renewed skirmishes between two former Soviet Union Republics, Armenia and Azerbaijan over a contested mountainous territory[26] where the latter’s president threatened a full scale war with the former over Twitter[27] and a conflict which Russian President Vladmir Putin as of this writing has been trying to broker a peace deal[28].

While there may other ongoing wars, none has captured the world’s attention than the civil war in Ukraine which threatens to escalate into a war between US-NATO and Russia.

Economic sanctions are equivalent to protectionism that risks retaliation and further escalation. I recently wrote[29],
One thing may lead to another. If the brinkmanship escalation worsens, then sanctions are likely to expand to eventually cover trade and finance and more. This paves way for more heated confrontation which may open the door to a military conflict in today’s nuclear age. We just pray that cooler heads will prevail.
In other words, economic sanctions are equivalent to economic warfare. The great Proto-Austrian economist, the French classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat once said that “if goods don’t cross borders, armies will”

Historian Eric Margolis echoes Bastiat and provides a precedent[30]:
Economic embargos such as those launched by the US against Russia may seem relatively harmless. They are not. Trade sanctions are a form of strategic warfare that is sometimes followed by bullets and shells.

Think, for good example, of the 1940 US embargo against Japan that led Tokyo’s fateful decision to go to war rather than face slow,economic strangulation. How many Americans know that President Roosevelt closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping to enforce demands that Tokyo get out of Manchuria and China?
We are seeing some signs of these.

Recently, the US has imposed sanctions “directly targeting Russia’s banking, defence and energy sectors”[31], Russia has responded by “imposing a "full embargo" on food imports from the EU, US and some other Western countries”, which includes “fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, milk and dairy imports”[32] aside from “banning Ukrainian airlines from transit across its territory”. Russia also considers expanding retaliatory sanctions to include a ban on transit flights for EU and US airlines from Siberian airspace.

Professor Michael Rozeff gives 17 reasons why the US sanctions against Russia are crazy

Yet instead of sanctions leading to de-escalation, US sanctions on Russia appears to provoke more reciprocal adversarial response. Russia has recently re-amassed troops over the Ukraine border[33], and importantly, listen up, the US government has admitted that the Russian air force flew 16 forays over or near US air space at Alaska and at Northern Canada over the last 10 days[34]!

Historian Margolis says that because of the limited number of troops on both sides to conduct a full scale conventional war, such limitations are temptations to use tactical nuclear weapons. 

It’s really silly for both governments to put the risks of a global Armageddon on the table just to please the egos of these politicians.

Even if we are to discount the occurrence of a nuclear war, these economic sanctions could lead to a 1930s equivalent of Smoot Hawley act or essentially de-globalization via protectionism.

But instead of a Smoot Hawley in response to a stock market-banking sector collapse, in today’s environment the causation may work in the opposite.

Economic sanctions can be the trigger for a global economic and financial black swan.

Economic sanctions can be interpreted as equivalent to monetary tightening. Investopedia.com’s defines credit crunch[35] as “an economic condition in which investment capital is difficult to obtain. Banks and investors become wary of lending funds to corporations, which drives up the price of debt products for borrowers.”

This means that despite zero bound rates or further QE by central banks, by imposing restrictions on capital flows and credit, banks and investors will become wary of lending funds to financial and nonfinancial corporations affected by the sanctions. And one can’t just look at the numbers because the financial system has been vastly interconnected if not tightly interdependent. 

As I earlier noted, one thing can lead to another. Economic sanctions can spread to include allies (say China). Or the impact of sanctions can be transmitted via network effects.

Also sanctions are self-destructive. Take a look at Russia’s food counter sanctions against West.

One should first ask why does a country import? A country imports because the products may not be produced in the domestic economy, or they may be inefficiently or inadequately produced (or produced more expensively based on the law of comparative advantage) or offer more choice to the consumers (via product variation or quality, again law of comparative advantage).

To clarify: importations are conducted usually by enterprises than by the government. So I used ‘country’ to simplify the explanation

So by cutting off or prohibiting supply means to punish domestic consumers more than the overseas suppliers. Domestic consumers will have reduced supply at higher prices, if not at reduced quality. Meanwhile overseas suppliers suffer from a loss of business. The losses will be transmitted to suppliers to labor or even to taxes.

This applies whether to food or other items. The end result is that both parties lose, which further means that all these sanctions are like shooting oneself on the foot.

So in the case of Russia’s food sanctions, expect the average Russians to suffer from higher food prices, if not food shortages. You can see Russia’s food import numbers here.

Also, take for example US-Russian trade which has recently collapsed. Media says sanctions have worked. Media doesn’t see the losses incurred by US producers as well as the potential impact of those losses to the economy. This applies as well to Russia.

Media has been fascinated by the numbers. What media doesn’t see is that of the human factor matters more than the numbers. If both sides will escalate further, then more and more parts of the global economy will be affected. We will end up with epic collapse given the epic bubble. But instead of finance, we may have a collapse triggered by a geopolitical fiasco.

Another problem with media is that sanctions applied by the US before may not have fomented war because these have been imposed against much smaller countries, say Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

It would be a mistake to make the same comparison against Russia. They seem to forget that Russia, while smaller, has economic clout over the Eurozone due to energy supplies. Importantly Russia has roughly the same number of nuclear weapons as the US.

Politically, economic depression from sanctions will be used by politicians to fuel nationalistic fervor that will incite popular clamor for war. These impassioned responses may provoke a real war.

At the end of the day all these sanctions will go back to Bastiat “if goods don’t cross borders, armies will”.

Unfortunately instead of armies, what may cross today’s borders may be nuclear bombs.

Have a nice day.




[2] IMF.org IMF Executive Board Concludes 2014 Article IV Consultation with the Philippines Press Release No. 14/388 August 8, 2014







[9] Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Spitznagel Time to tackle the real evil: too much debt Financial Times July 13, 2008


[11] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas July Inflation Rises to 4.9 Percent August 5, 2014


[13] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas BSP Peso Rediscount Rate Effective 4 August 2014 August 15, 2014






[19]IMF loc cit

[20] Inquirer.net BIR rule seen to trigger capital flight August 4, 2014

[21] Inquirer.net BIR seeks perks to attract better workers August 4, 2014

[22] Wall Street Journal Real Times Economics Blog RBI’s Rajan Sees Risk of Financial Markets Crash August 6, 2014

[23] Financial Times US banks warn on ‘excessive’ risk-taking August 6, 2014







[30] Eric Margolis What if There’s a Real War in Ukraine? August 9, 2014 Lewrockwell.com





[35] Investopedia.com Credit Crunch

Saturday, August 09, 2014

What would a US-NATO and Russia War at Ukraine Look Like? Clue: Nuclear War

At the LewRockwell.com, historian Eric Margolis ponders on scenarios from a possible escalation in the Ukraine crisis that leads to the real thing—a shooting war between NATO-US and the Russia.

First, the seeds to war has already been sown. 

Channeling the great French economist  Frederic Bastiat’s if goods don t cross borders, armies will Mr. Margolis writes (bold mine)
Russia and the West are at war – over fruits, veggies, pork, and bank loans. The cause is Ukraine, a vast emptiness formerly unknown to the western world,  but now deemed a vital national security interest worthy of a risking a very scary war.

Economic embargos such as those launched by the US against Russia may seem relatively harmless. They are not. Trade sanctions are a form of strategic warfare that is sometimes followed by bullets and shells.

Think, for good example, of the 1940 US embargo against Japan that led Tokyo’s fateful decision to go to war rather than face slow,economic strangulation. How many Americans know that President Roosevelt closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping to enforce demands that Tokyo get out of Manchuria and China?

Frighteningly, today, there are senior officials in Washington and Moscow who are actually considering a head on clash in Ukraine between Russian forces and NATO – which is an extension of US military power.
More aggravating factors…
Intensifying attacks by Ukrainian government forces (quietly armed and financed by the US) against  pro-Russian separatists and civilian targets in eastern Ukraine are increasing the danger that Moscow may intervene militarily to protect Ukraine’s ethnic Russian minority.

A full-scale military clash could begin with a Russian-declared “no-fly” zone over the eastern Ukraine such as the US imposed over Iraq. Moscow’s aim would be to stop the bombing and shelling of Ukrainian rebel cities by Kiev’s air force.
The balance of power between protagonists…
NATO could quickly deploy its potent air power against Russian aircraft.  US and NATO aircraft flying from new bases in Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland could seriously challenge the Russian Air Force over the Russia-Ukraine border region. More US warplanes would be rushed into Eastern Europe. Russian air defenses are strong and its air bases are close to the sphere of action. Still, NATO air power has a technological superiority over the Russian Air Force and better trained pilots.

On the ground, Russia has a slight advantage. It has 16,000-18,000 troops on the Ukraine border made up of mechanized infantry, armor, mobile air defense and artillery. A competent but small force, and hardly a menace to Europe, as the pro-war media howl.   Compare this small number of troops to the Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front alone in 1944,  made up of six armies and thousands of tanks and heavy guns.
Why a large conventional warfare is like fighting the last war
Russia could fight border skirmishes but certainly not retake Ukraine with this paltry force. Russia’s once 200-division army which boasted some 50,000 tanks is today a shadow of its past: 205,000 active soldiers and 80,000 indifferent reservists spread over the world’s larges nation. Russia, as always, has excellent heavy artillery and good tanks, but nothing compared to WWII when Soviet 152mm guns and rocket batteries were lined up wheel-to-wheel for kilometers.

Any attempt by NATO to capture Crimea would likely be defeated by Soviet air, naval, and land forces. The constricted, shallow Black Sea could prove a death trap for US warships.  Sevastopol (with Leningrad and Stalingrad) was named a Hero City of the Soviet Union for its heroic defense in WWII

Ukraine’s cobbled together army, about 64,000 men, suffers from poor training, logistical problems, and weak leadership. During Soviet days, it numbered more than 700,000 with the cutting edge of Russian weapons. Today, the army is stiffened by foreign mercenaries and far-rightists from Kiev. Even so, it could not stand up to Russia’s better-armed, better-equipped troops.

What about NATO?  In 1970, the US Army had about 710,000 soldiers in Europe, mostly based in Germany. Today, US has only 27,500 German-based troops left,  largely non-combat support units. At best, the US could probably assemble two weak combat brigades – about 5,500 men total – to rush to Ukraine. The rest of US forces are based in Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Gulf,  South Korea, and Japan, or at stateside. Moving them to Europe would take about six months.
From limited conventional war to the risks of Mutually Assured Destruction
So any military clash in Ukraine would initially be limited in scope and intensity. But a confrontation could quickly escalate into a dangerous crisis. The Cold War taught that nuclear – armed powers must never fight directly, only through proxies.

Nothing is worth the risk of nuclear war, even a limited one.

Let the Ukrainians sort out their differences by referendum.

On the 100th anniversary of World War I, we again see our leaders playing with matches.
image

The above chart from Businessinsider.com represents the updated distribution of nuclear weapons around the globe.

For those who believe that a US-NATO and Russian nuclear exchange would be like a boxing match that one can just watch while eating popcorns and cheer on the sidelines, here is a quote from political analyst Paul Craig Roberts at his website:
However, Washington believes that it can win a nuclear war with little or no damage to the US. This belief makes nuclear war likely.

As Steven Starr makes clear, this belief is based in ignorance. Nuclear war has no winner. Even if US cities were saved from retaliation by ABMs, the radiation and nuclear winter effects of the weapons that hit Russia and China would destroy the US as well.

Have a nice day

US Finances Israel’s Gaza War via Foreign Aid

The Israel Central Bank estimates the cost of the Gaza War to the Israel at $1.4 billion

From Reuters: The month-long Gaza war cost Israel's economy some $1.44 billion (855.51 million British pound), its central bank governor Karnit Flug said on Thursday, citing interim assessments. "The assessment is that it can reach up to around 0.5 percent of GDP, which is up to 5 billion shekels," Flug told Israel's Channel Ten television.

The CCTV has higher projections. They see that the costs of the war to Israel’s economy will accrue to $3 billion.

For Gaza the assessed cost has been at $ 6 billion, according to Haaretz.com
 
I’ll apply Murphy’s law here where “anything you try to fix will take longer and cost you more than you thought.”

Why? Because of the political economic dimension behind the war.

Of course, wars haven’t just been about damage to property or cost of armaments, the most important costs are people’s lives.

Nonetheless for Israeli politicians “costs” will likely be a less important consideration, why?

Well, because the “costs” to Israel have been financed by the US government via foreign aid.

image

2015 Foreign Aid has been appraised at $ 3.1 billion, which seems higher than those "cost" assessments.

As the Vox.com reports: (bold mine)
Even Egypt and Pakistan are not, in the grand scheme of things, particularly poor countries. It's just that American foreign aid mostly isn't economic assistance to needy people or needy countries. If it were, India would get more aid than Israel and Haiti would get more aid than Egypt.

Instead, the bulk of the money is spent on buying American military equipment, serving as a kind of indirect subsidy to the military-industrial complex. That's part of how a country like Israel that isn't objectively hard-up for money winds up getting more assistance than anyone else. Israel does have a healthy appetite for advanced military hardware, and it's considered a geopolitically reliable nation that can be trusted with it. So American foreign policy is committed to helping Israel maintain a qualitative military advantage vis-à-vis other Middle Eastern countries. Meanwhile, part of the Carter-era Camp David Accords is a guarantee of a lot of money to the Egyptian military to keep it favorably disposed to a pro-American foreign policy and détente with Israel.
The incentive to go to war is there because of subsidies provided to the Israel government. Consequently, such subsidies enriches the highly influential US military industrial complex. Take away those phony "foreign aid" and the incentive to go to war will most likely diminish. Perhaps the warring parties will learn how to use the markets and trade in order to develop cooperation instead of destroying each other.

And you can also see, foreign aid "flows" reveal that the US hasn’t been helping the poor, but rather helping nations allied to their goals of promoting their role as de facto “global policeman” regardless of their economic conditions.

And it could even be interpreted that the Gaza war could signify a proxy-surrogate war by the US channeled through Israel.



Quote of the Day: Blaming Bad Outcomes on Bad People rather than Bad Institutions

And yet: how often do you hear people saying that we need to vote the bums out and replace them with the wise, the virtuous, and the incorruptible? How often are people shocked (SHOCKED!) that politicians respond to incentives? How often do people treat systemic institutional failures as if they are individual moral failings by people who are of virtue insufficient for their office? How often do we blame bad outcomes on "bad people" rather than "bad institutions"?
This is from Professor Art Carden at the Econolog (Library of Economics and Liberty). 

The blaming “bad people” phenomenon represents what I call as “personality based” populist politics.

And related to this topic a suggested read is from The Freeman's debunking of one popular statist myth or the Clichés of Progressivism #17 – “All We Need Is the Right People to Run the Government”

Friday, August 08, 2014

Breaking: US President Obama Authorizes Air Strikes in Iraq, Global Equity Markets Convulses

The US government (and vested interest groups) has been itching to get involved in wars. So the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace awardee US President Barack Obama found justification to get into one, thereby authorizing airstrikes in Iraq.

From CNN:
U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday that he's authorized "targeted airstrikes" in Iraq to protect American personnel and help Iraqi forces.

"We do whatever is necessary to protect our people," Obama said. "We support our allies when they're in danger."

A key concern for U.S. officials: American consular staff and military advisers working with the Iraqi military in Irbil, the largest city in Iraq's Kurdish region.

Obama said Thursday he'd directed the military to take targeted strikes against Islamist militants "should they move towards the city."

Rapid developments on the ground, where a humanitarian crisis is emerging with minority groups facing possible slaughter by Sunni Muslim extremists, have set the stage for an increasingly dire situation.
It’s not farfetched where ground forces will be next. Besides, after all these years money spent and lives lost, the US government can't seem to get enough of Iraq

Oh, don’t forget there is the Ukraine crisis in the pipeline. So far, the Ukraine crisis has been a ‘civil war’. But this localized war may mutate into an international war or even World War III very soon.

War has always been used as opportunities to exploit society (through financial repression) and suppress internal political opposition in order to advance the interests of the ruling political class whose interest are interlinked with the politically favored banking class, the welfare and the warfare class.
American Novelist Ernest Hemmingway said it best
The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.
Stocks have been taking a drubbing, as of this writing Japan’s Nikkei are off nearly 3%
image

Asian markets have been mostly bloodied (Bloomberg).

image
So as with US futures (CNN)

But for the bulls, such would represent a 'buying opportunity'. That's because for the "don't worry be happy" crowd, stocks are bound to go up forever....until it won't.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Simon Black: The US Dollar is Going Down

Sovereign Man’s Simon Black predicts (bold mine)
So the government of Switzerland recently signed a bilateral currency swap agreement with China, enabling the two countries to buy and sell up to 150 billion RMB or 21 billion Swiss Francs of each other’s currencies.

Switzerland is just the latest to join the queue, as nearly 25 other central banks already signed similar agreements with China.

Every few weeks, and with increasing frequency, we’re hearing news of the next country that is accepting China’s future financial primacy.

There’s no denying that both sovereign nations and market participants are accepting the validity of the RMB as a major trade currency. This is no longer an anomaly, but part of an obvious trend.

To be fair, it’s not that the RMB is a shoe-in for the next global reserve currency—because the country and its currency undoubtedly both have problems.

What’s really being revealed with these latest developments is relative confidence.

It may not be clear whether or not the RMB will make it to the top, but what is clear to everyone is that the USD is going down.

Here we see ambitious countries like the UK and Switzerland proactively trying to adapt to and take advantage of the changing financial climate.

The sole tactic of the US government, on the other hand, is to lash out at countries which make them feel threatened.

They rally the whole world against Russia for acts of war. They blast China as a currency manipulator.

And all of this as if the US wasn’t dropping bombs by remote control drone… or heavily manipulating its own currency.

This has accomplished nothing other than to demonstrate just how weak and insecure the former financial superpower has become.

Continuing to believe that the dollar is going to maintain its global reserve status is now not only foolish, but financially hazardous. To countries, businesses and individuals.

Those that accept these changes and try to get out in front of this trend will do incredibly well. They are the ones who will survive intact when the financial system resets.

Those who ignore the trend do so at their own peril.
I would add that aside from US balance sheet problems and the Fed policies inflating of the mother of all bubbles, financial imperialism via intrusive laws like FACTA and possibly Dodd Frank and brinkmanship foreignimperialist policies as (noted by Mr. Black) that has prompted for geopolitical factionalism which has only given rise of protectionism risks and of a World War as previously discussed are negatives for the US dollar overtime.

An Update on the US Shopping Mall-Retailing Bust

I previously wrote about the US shopping mall bubble bust. Well it appears that this retail depression episode continues to linger. 

image
Here is an update. From a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Shoppers are Fleeing Physical Stores”
U.S. retailers are facing a steep and persistent drop in store traffic, which is weighing on sales and prompting chains to slow store openings as shoppers make more of their purchases online.

Aside from a small uptick in April, shopper visits have fallen by 5% or more from a year earlier in every month for the past two years, according to ShopperTrak, a Chicago-based data firm that records store visits for retailers using tracking devices installed at 40,000 U.S. outlets. Even as warmer temperatures replace the harsh winter weather this year, store visits fell by nearly 7% in June and nearly 5% in July, according to ShopperTrak.

New data from Moody's Investors Service shows that the shift to online sales has prompted retailers to scale back store openings and will likely lead them to pare back their fleets even more in coming years, as more than $70 billion in lease debt expires by 2018. Growth in store counts at the 100 largest retailers by revenue has slowed to less than 3% from more than 12% three years ago, according to Moody's.

The pressure comes as consumer tastes are changing. Instead of wandering through stores and making impulse purchases, shoppers use their mobile phones and computers to research prices and cherry-pick promotions, sticking to shopping lists rather than splurging on unneeded items. Even discount retailers are finding it harder to boost sales by lowering prices as many low-income consumers struggle to afford the basics regardless of the price.
While it is true that changing shopping habits of US consumers have partly been a factor, online sales are just about 6% of total retail sales where the 94% still has mainly been from brick and mortar stores.

image

This means US household consumption, stricken by balance sheet constraints from the previous Fed induced overborrowing (boom), has hardly recovered since the Lehman crisis. US household have been deleveraging as evident in the chart from Yardeni.com’s US Flow of Funds.

The Fed’s manipulation of money via interest rates has distorted prices that has led to the previous excessive debt financed consumption (boom), and consequently, to the race to build retail spaces and edifices.  When money tightened, the whole bubble collapsed. Vacancy in retail outlets and shopping mall surfaced. In fact, many shopping malls have been demolished.

Of course recent FED policies has only compounded the situation. By boosting (again) debt financed stock market boom, resources have been channeled into speculative activities rather than to productive activities, thus limiting economic recovery which has been transmitted to US consumption via retail sales.  

So still hobbled by balance sheet problems, consumer demand continues to languish which has been reflected on the still struggling in US shopping mall/retailing. 

And the US retailing shopping mall saga also extrapolates to a blueprint for the Philippine zero bound rate impelled shopping mall boom whose consumers are now buffeted by a sustained rise in consumer price inflation. Mounting inflation risks has forced the domestic central bank to raise interest rates. Boom will soon morph into a bust. And like the US, there will substantial vacancies and unoccupied retail spaces and malls or like China's "Ghost Malls". 

All it takes is for one to learn from history and from development in other countries. Unfortunately who in the mainstream cares about learning?

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Why Asia is in Trouble: Corporate Savings Under Assault

For the government and the mainstream, the only thing that matters for the political economy is spend, spend, spend to infinity and beyond, regardless of the quality and financing of such activities.

So they endorse almost any policies that assails on savings--which is seen as a scourge.

This Keynesian myth has practically been embraced by Asian governments to the point that some of have directly imposed penalties on corporate cash hoard.

Investors have long criticized many of Asia’s corporate giants for hoarding billions of dollars. Now those cash piles are under attack from governments that want them put to better use driving economic growth.

Last month, Korea announced that as part of a $40 billion economic stimulus package, it would impose a tax on companies that keep piling up savings instead of paying them out to workers or shareholders.

In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has pushed companies to raise payouts to shareholders and workers, and Beijing has ordered state-owned behemoths to boost their dividends to the government to help pay for expanded social-welfare programs.

The International Monetary Fund took aim at the issue this month in its latest report on Japan, calling on Friday for better corporate governance to help “unstash Japan’s corporate cash.” The IMF estimates Japanese companies are sitting on record amounts of cash, equivalent to more than 9% of gross domestic product.

The idea is that by unleashing these corporate cash lodes onto shareholders and employees, they will either invest it more profitably in other parts of the economy, or simply spend it – either of which is better for growth than having it sit in the bank.
While such policies may temporarily be a boost to shareholders and employees these will have nasty side effects over the long run that has been unseen or neglected by the consensus. 

[Note: I exclude China's State Owned Enterprises in the discussion below]

One major reason why corporations hold cash is due to “uncertainty” (perhaps in reaction to social policies, to changes in the risk environment or to changes in profit opportunities) and or in relation this, the possible waiting for the right opportunities to deploy these surplus reserves. 

Yet by forcing companies to spend, such incentivize companies to wade into or speculate on unproductive ventures that risks financial losses. This would hardly be a boost to shareholders and employees. 

In addition, if many companies engage in politically induced 'forced' speculation such will lead to massive mis-allocation of capital, thus poses as a systemic risk. Combined with easy money policies, such will compound on bubble formation.

By forcing companies to pay employees more than what the company sees as their marginal productivity contribution to the company’s product/s, such increases business costs (decreases productivity) that could lead to a scrimp in profits or even to financial losses.

By forcing companies to shell out dividends, the opportunity cost of such actions will be investment opportunities when they emerge. These companies won’t have the resources to invest without recourse to debt. Subsequently, this also means that forcing companies to reduce cash reserves would increase balance sheet risks via debt accumulation.

This obsession with the crucifixion of savings and spending as panacea signals trouble ahead. 

As Austrian economist Gerald Jackson recently wrote: (bold mine)
Unfortunately economic thinking has now deteriorated to the point that one of the major economic fallacies the classical economists refuted is now presented on a daily basis in universities, colleges and the media as an irrefutable fact. The result is that governments the world over are implementing policies that direct economic activity to increased consumption at the expense of gross investment. As the Austrians are forever pointing out, it is gross investment, expenditure on all future-goods factors, that maintain the capital structure: not net investment or consumer spending

We are thus left with the conclusion that fighting a recession by encouraging consumption will prolong and perhaps even deepen it. One thing is certain from an Austrian perspective: if the critical point is reached where increased consumption spending continues to drive down gross investment then real wages must eventually fall if the phenomenon of permanent widespread unemployment is to be avoided.
Overall, the spending nostrum is all about temporary gratification at the expense of the future. This signifies what politics has been all about: Get votes today, voters be damned after.

Where is the Boom? OFW’s in Libya’s Choice: Die as Heroes or Die in Hunger

Populist politics tell us that they know more what is good or best for the OFWs caught in the ongoing Libyan war. So they have exhorted them to return to the homeland care of taxpayers. But apparently paternalist self-righteous politics have been rebuffed.

From today’s headlines at the Inquirer.net (bold mine)
Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in Libya prefer to stay in the strife-torn North African country because they have “better chances of surviving” there than in the Philippines, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said on Monday.

Only 1,700 Filipinos working in Libya have signed up for repatriation since the Philippine government ordered a mandatory evacuation of its more than 13,000 workers there last month, said Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario.
Even more…
Despite the danger, many Filipinos in Libya have ignored the government’s order for mandatory evacuation, DFA spokesman Charles Jose told reporters on Monday.

“The usual reason we hear from them is that they would rather take the chance. They think they have greater chances of surviving the war [there] than of surviving uncertainty [without jobs] here,” Jose said.
Such are very revealing commentaries.

For OFWs to say they have “better chances of surviving” can be interpreted as it is better to die as “heroes” than to die in hunger or even as a starved forgotten voter.

I say “heroes” because the Libyan healthcare system heavily depends on OFWs

From another Inquirer headline 3 days back:
More than 3,000 health workers from the Philippines, making up 60 percent of Libya’s hospital staff, could leave along with workers from India, who account for another 20 percent.

Libyan hospitals are flooded with a wave of admissions, victims of the fighting that has shaken the capital and Benghazi...

“Hospitals could be paralyzed” in the event of the mass departure of Filipino health workers, Libyan health ministry spokesperson Ammar Mohammed said, while authorities warned of a possible “total collapse” of the healthcare system.
So one reason OFWs may have opted to stay in Libya, aside from economic reasons would be about contribution to society.

This passage gives us a clue:
Filipino nurses are especially apprehensive about leaving because employers have enticed them to stay with additional pay and they are committed to their hospital work, Del Rosario said. 

image

So populist politics (politicians and their media apologists) fundamentally neglected the OFWs individual interest as revealed by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs such as belonging, esteem and self actualization. So the "bring-them-back-home" solution (feel good, noble intention, vote generating) solution has only backfired.

Yet even more striking is the statement: They think they have greater chances of surviving the war [there] than of surviving uncertainty [without jobs] here” 

To repeat with emphasis: GREATER CHANCES of surviving the war than of surviving WITHOUT JOBS.

Yikes!!!  

So what happened to the supposed Philippine economic boom??? 

Why has the OFWs not partaken of the boom? Why the stunning aversion to go return, despite the 7% 'transformational' boom that has been broadcasted all over the world? 

Why has working in the battlefront become the ONLY "life or death" or survival choice for the OFWs? Or why the lack of alternative that has led to desperate choices?

Who has benefited from the supposed boom?

Well, some boom eh.

Monday, August 04, 2014

Portugal Central Bank Bails Out Banco Espiritu Santo

I previously noted of the banking turmoil happening in Portugal: Add to Bulgaria’s woes has been the recent hubbub over Portugal’s largest listed lender the Banco Espiritu Santo (BES) which just filed for creditor protection following the company’s newly discovered financial irregularities and the failure to make payments to creditors. Following March highs, Portugal’s stock market  plummeted into the bear market as the BES saga unraveled. 

Well governments (like China) are back into a frantic bailout mode. The Portuguese Central Bank reportedly announced a $6.6 billion rescue of Banco Espiritu Santo (BES) 

From Bloomberg:
Portugal’s central bank took control of Banco Espirito Santo SA, once the country’s largest lender by market value, in a 4.9 billion-euro ($6.6 billion) bailout that will leave junior bondholders with losses.

The Bank of Portugal’s Resolution Fund will move Banco Espirito Santo’s deposit-taking operations and most of its assets to a new company, Novo Banco, which it will own outright. The fund will finance the rescue with a Treasury loan to be repaid by Novo Banco’s eventual sale. Espirito Santo shareholders and junior bondholders will be left with the most “problematic” assets, including loans to other parts of the Espirito Santo Group and the lender’s stake in its Angolan operation, according to a central bank statement yesterday.

“Shareholders, subordinated debt holders as well as board members or former board members directly involved in the more recent events, and not the taxpayers, will be called to shoulder the losses incurred by a banking business they failed to adequately oversee,” the Finance Ministry said in a statement.

Banco Espirito Santo has been forced to take public money after regulators uncovered potential losses on loans to other companies tied to Portugal’s Espirito Santo family and ordered the lender to raise capital. Bank of Portugal Governor Carlos Costa had sought to find private investors to inject the cash, and said government funds would only be a last resort. The Portuguese government has about 6.4 billion euros remaining from its European Union-led bailout in 2011 to fund the capital injection.
So the Portugal government’s BES bailout will leave little contingent funds for any other potential financial instability.

image
Chart from Reuters

The sustained meltdown in BES shares has prompted the Portuguese government to suspend trading.
image

The BES ruckus has even spilled over to Portugal’s major equity benchmark the P-20, which has been hammered, now back to a bear market 


The BES episode is a reminder that, despite previously rising stocks and today’s bail out, all have not well in the Eurozone.