Here is a short video on the history of Central Banking from Cato’s Dan Mitchell...
Here is the list of US and world financial crisis from Misis.org wiki (click on the link to redirect you to the page)
Here is a graph of the number of banking crisis worldwide post the Nixon Shock or the End of the Bretton Woods standard (from the World Bank)
The reason I had to include these is to illustrate how central banks have fundamentally failed to contain panics-the rationalized role for their existence.
Dictatorships are bullish for the markets, David Kotok of Cumberland Advisers says so, (bold highlights mine)
In the reality check currently underway, the seats of power (Sultans-Kings-Sheiks-or their sons) do not easily yield that power to kids with stones and Facebook. The king must either be outgunned (Libya) or he wins and the kids are punished harshly. In Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere in MENA we are witnessing an outcome that is a blend of policy discussed in two classics. For details, see Metternich and what is called “Realpolitik.” For profiles of the victors in MENA, visit Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” In MENA, bullets triumph over ballots.
Okay, freedom loses. Kids die. It is a sad day for those of us who wish it were otherwise.
But for markets, it becomes a bullish outcome. Markets like stability and predictability. Markets know that kings with armies are stable and reliable. The players in these markets would not like to be born to the common class in those countries. These players like their life in freedom.
First of all, it’s rather sad and unfortunate to hear the hue of schadenfreude undergird such seemingly ‘prejudiced’ statements. These are what give capitalism a bad reputation. [Actually what Mr. Kotok cheers for is a crony based capitalism-dancing with dictators]
Second, is Mr. Kotok suggesting that “kings with armies” represent as stable political economic arrangements? If so, then why the chain of revolts?
Below is an interactive graph from the Economist of some possible factors that may have influenced the MENA revolts
Where dictators corner the resources of a nation at the expense of the majority, does Mr. Kotok honestly expect their constituents to remain forever docilely repressed?
You guys are so fortunate NOT to be on their places!
Three, markets have not been as cooperative with the Cumberland team, since they declared that they went to raise cash holdings from the emergence of MENA’s political uncertainties.
Yet it’s more of Japan’s natural disaster issues that have rocked the boat more than the MENA issues.
Thus seeing the market’s uncooperativeness, the Cumberland shifts from bearish to fully invested.
Fourth, the issue of “Realpolitik” have not been resolved.
The Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain has not entirely quelled dissent.
Politics represents an ongoing process. Thus, whatever short-term gains achieved by the present coercive actions of the consortium of dictators may or may not last.
Today’s defection of Yemen’s key army commanders partially rebuts the idea that incumbents “do not easily yield that power to kids with stones and Facebook”. Maybe not easily, but this only shows that “facebook and kids with stones” have the power to turn the army on their sides.
Don’t forget armies are composite of people---who can be swayed by influences (like networks-families, friends or culture-religion).
As a saying goes... It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
Like it or not, “Kids with stones and Facebook” will play a far crucial role in shaping the geopolitical context than most experts would expect.
If your emotional abilities aren't in hand, if you don't have self-awareness, if you are not able to manage your distressing emotions, if you can't have empathy and have effective relationships, then no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.-Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence
Markets thrive on information. Information is processed as knowledge. Thus knowledge which coordinates people’s actions through prices, determines the risk-reward tradeoff.
Amgydala’s Fight or Flight Response[1]
When uncertainties or the prospect of peril emerges, our brain’s amygdala responds by impelling us either to fight or to take flight. That’s because our brain has been hardwired from our ancestor’s desire for survival—they didn’t want to be the next meal for predators in the wild.
Applied to the present state of the markets, the legacy of our ancestor’s base instincts still remains with us.
Yet in face of market turmoil, some would say “when in doubt get out”. But that’s an absurd statement to begin with.
First, there is hardly any market that operates without a doubt. Markets exist exactly with the aim to reduce such uncertainties, risk and or doubts.
As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed there is nothing certain, and everything is subject to speculation[2]
Future needs and valuations, the reaction of men to changes in conditions, future scientific and technological knowledge, future ideologies and policies can never be foretold with more than a greater or smaller degree of probability. Every action refers to an unknown future. It is in this sense always a risky speculation.
Two, the sheer prospects of black swan event (low probability, high magnitude impact) like Japan’s nuclear crisis always lurks somewhere.
Again, our understanding is always based on incomplete knowledge.
In contrast to the act of taking flight, doubts are where profits reside.
It’s basically a battle between the emotional and the rational. This is magnificently encapsulated by the Wall Street axiom “Bears and Bulls make money Pigs get slaughtered”.
Pigs get slaughtered because they depend on the amygdala to direct their actions. In short, when emotions hijack our rationality then we react senselessly and increase our risks.
Emotional Phases of Investing
The chart above illustrates how overconfidence or extreme depressions mark the inflection points of major market trends. In other words, when the consensus reveals certainty about a specific trend, that’s the time to take the classic contrarian stance—stay on the opposite side of the trade!
As author and economist the late Peter Bernstein wrote[3], (bold highlights mine)
In their calmer moments, investors recognize their inability to know what the future holds. In moments of extreme panic or enthusiasm, however, they become remarkably bold in their predictions; they act as though uncertainty has vanished and the outcome is beyond doubt. Reality is abruptly transformed into that hypothetical future where the outcome is known. These are rare occasions, but they are also unforgettable: major tops and bottoms in markets are defined by this switch from doubt to certainty.
Three, when dealing with the financial markets, it is the Emotional Intelligence (EI)—or the argued ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups[4]--that is essential.
The management of the emotions is critical to weighing risk-reward tradeoff.
Psychologist and author Daniel Goleman offers 4 main ways to manage Emotional Intelligence:
-Self-awareness – the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
-Self-management – involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
-Social awareness – the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions while comprehending social networks.
-Relationship management – the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict.
Thus when the stream of information suggests that the ensuing problems, like Japan’s nuclear crisis, are becoming less uncertain, what then we have is a transformation of uncertainty (immeasurable risk) to a quantified risk environment (measurable losses). Thus, the market starts to discount the ‘negative’ information.
And that’s why the effect of calamities on the financial markets has usually had limited impact[5].
Let me add that the problems that beset Japan today has been one of technical (how to control the risk of contamination from the affected nuclear power and the disaster rehabilitation or rebuilding) more than about sociology (social relations).
This makes the ongoing interventions in the Middle East by the Saudi Arabia-led GCC forces on Bahrain[6] and UN sanctioned military strikes in Libya[7] as having the probability of more lasting adverse impact than Japan because the MENA events represents social problems.
What would pose as the uncertainty factor would be the consequences or the possible unforeseen events from these interventions, e.g. how will Iran (Shiite) respond to Saudi’s (Sunni) aggressive actions given the sphere of influence conflict between Islam sect Shia-Sunni? Will Iran’s response be benign or will it provoke or parlay into a regional armed conflict which should drag the entire world with it?
The point here is to distinguish the source of uncertainty and ascertain how will it be resolved or dealt with. The events in itself do not constitute as market risks, it is the chain of 'stimulus-response' and 'action-reaction' based on the interpretations of the consequences of these events that constitutes as uncertainties or risks.
I close this with a quote from the great Professor Ludwig von Mises[8], (bold highlights mine)
In the real world acting man is faced with the fact that there are fellow men acting on their own behalf as he himself acts. The necessity to adjust his actions to other people's actions makes him a speculator for whom success and failure depend on his greater or lesser ability to understand the future. Every action is speculation. There is in the course of human events no stability and consequently no safety
[1] Royal Air Force, On Field Discipline 2004
[2] Mises, Ludwig von VI. UNCERTAINTY: Uncertainty and Acting Chapter 6 Section 1, Human Action
[3] Bernstein Peter, quoted from A Study Of Market History And Valuation Through Graham And Buffett And Others By John Chew, istockanalyst.com
[4] Wikipedia.org Emotional intelligence
[5] See Will Japan’s Earthquake-Tsunami Be Market Bearish Or Bullish? March 13, 2011
[6] See Saudi Arabia Led GCC Intervention In Bahrain March 15, 2011
[7] See Fearing A Slap On The Face, UN Sanctions A No-Fly Zone, March 18, 2011
[8] Mises, Ludwig von VI. UNCERTAINTY: Case Probability; Chapter 6 Section 4 Human Action
Exchange-rate policies produce the usual spiral of interventionism: the de facto consequences tend to diverge from the original intentions, prompting further rounds of doomed interventions. This interventionist escalation is not only limited to an incessant repetition of the same failed policies, but the errors committed in one policy area also affect other parts of the economy. Thus, it is only a matter of time until errors of monetary policy lead to fiscal fiascos, and exchange-rate interventions lead to trade conflicts.- Dr. Antony P. Mueller
The markets loudly cheered on Japan’s aggressive engagement of her version of quantitative easing. Even more ecstatically to the joint intervention by the G-7 on the currency market to weaken the Japanese Yen.
As I earlier pointed out, there is little relevance between Japan’s money printing and the containment of the radiation risk[1], as well as, the weakening of the Yen which may, on the contrary, even harm the recovery process, as a weak currency would increase the prices of imports which Japan sorely needs for her public works[2].
Yet this is exactly what I have been driving about since time immemorial, the global financial markets addiction to inflationism.
It’s not clear how effective such interventions work. The last time Japan intervened massively in the currency markets in 2004 (£150 billion[3]) as shown in the above chart[4] the result was an apparent failure.
To add, this week’s market meltdown, despite manifesting some signs of 2008 or across the board selloff, lacked the traditional safehaven features: the US dollar (USD) hardly rallied (red circle below the YEN) while the rally in US treasuries (UST) had likewise been unimpressive!
Meanwhile the Euro (XEU) substantially firmed while the Yen (XJY) soared by 3.3% on Wednesday March 16th! But the Yen gave up much of its gains on Friday following the G-7 announcement.
Reports say that the repatriation trade has been exaggerated.
According to the Finance Asia[5],
Japanese insurers are well-hedged at about 70% and have huge holdings in government bonds, which they could easily sell if they needed yen. And the industry is reinsured by the government anyway, so there is no shortage of yen in the insurance market.
The repatriation trade is, at best, premature, but the rumour of its existence was enough eventually to tip the market into a forced sell-off yesterday as dollar/yen sank below 80.
Mrs Watanabe, the archetypal Japanese housewife, typically holds a long position in US dollars. By Tuesday, those positions reached an all-time peak and, with dollar/yen parked close to 80, foreign speculators anticipating repatriation flows started to sell in the early hours of yesterday morning as trading moved from New York to Tokyo and liquidity was exceptionally low.
It is unclear if these reports are accurate and dependable, but it would seem that the steep overnight climb of the Yen has been unwarranted.
And thus, the markets natural response has been to sell down the Yen down which apparently has been exacerbated by the G-7 intervention.
Furthermore, critical credit markets hardly budged.
US Cash indices and 3M Libor OIS spread for both the US and the Euro, had seen little signs of anxiety in the face of the meltdown.
All these simply evince of a knee jerk fear premium.
In addition, the European Financial Stability Facility [EFSF] has been reinvigorated which may have given some legs to the Euro. According to the Danske Bank research team[6],
The negative events seem to have overshadowed the positive news that EU leaders agreed on new terms for the EFSF. The lending capacity of the existing facilities has been increased to EUR500bn and the EFSF has been allowed to purchase bonds in the primary market. This could prove a substantial help for Portugal. In addition, the interest rate has been lowered for Greece and the maturity extended after Greece agreed to sell state owned assets worth EUR50bn. The moves by the EU leaders were ahead of market expectations and are positive for peripheral spreads and therefore for the banking sector.
The actions of the Euro have basically been fulfilling what we have been saying throughout 2010[7].
Bottom line:
The current environment has clearly departed from the 2008 episode.
Moreover, like Pavlov’s dogs, financial markets have been elated by inflationism, which only means that current market trends can continue if governments continued to inflate.
[1] See Japan’s Disaster Recovery Program: Wishing Away Real Problems With A Tsunami of Money, March 15, 2011
[2] See Currency Intervention: Japan And The G-7 Aims To Boost Stock Markets, March 18, 2011
[3] Businss TimesOnline.co.uk Japan ends its £150bn currency intervention as economy firms, March 24, 2004
[4] Shedlock Mish Currency Intervention Madness, Japan Intervenes to Weaken the Yen, September 15, 2010
[5] Finance Asia, Mrs Watanabe, not repatriation, driving yen volatility, March 18, 2011
[6] Danske Bank, Weekly Credit Update, March 18, 2011
[7] See Ireland’s Woes Won’t Stop The Global Inflation Shindig, November 22, 2010; See Buy The Peso And The Phisix On Prospects Of A Euro Rally, June 14, 2010
Since every central bank of major economies has been inflating, it’s a question of which central bank has been inflating the most. The obvious answer is the US. The US has not only been inflating her economy, she has basically been inflating the rest of the world.
A US Dollar rally can occur and can be sustained once the US withholds inflationism. But $64 trillion question is: Can they afford the consequences?
Like in early 2010, experts and officials babbled about “exit strategies” as the US economy’s recovery advanced, something which we debunked as a Poker Bluff[1]. Yet 10 months later, the Fed re-engaged in Quantitative Easing 2[2] citing “low consumer spending” and “unemployment” as an excuse even as the US moved out of the recession in June of 2009th[3].
The mainstream doesn’t get it or has stubbornly been denying this.
Quantitative Easing or euphemistically called Credit Easing isn’t about the economy but about buttressing politically the US government and the banking system.
As Mises Institute Lew Rockwell writes[4],
Another truth is that the Fed doesn’t really care about inflation as much as it cares about the solvency of the banking and financial systems. Bernanke would drive us right into hyperinflation to save his industries. Savers living on pensions just don’t have the political clout to stop the money machine.
US housing has still been struggling. Since a substantial segment of the banking system’s balance sheets have been stuffed with US mortgages, then QE 1.0 and 2.0 has managed to keep these afloat but has, so far, failed to strongly revive the US housing market[5].
Under enfeebled housing conditions, a failure to continue with the QE amplifies the risks of falling housing prices thereby jeopardizing the fragile state of the US banking system.
Most importantly, the US Federal Reserve has been buying US Treasuries which means the US central bank has been funding the profligacy of US government.
Yet much of US treasury has also been substantially held by the foreign governments.
However, there are signs that the interest to hold US debt has been waning.
According to Economic Times India[6]
China, the biggest foreign holder of US debt has trimmed its portfolio to $1.15 trillion to diversify its foreign reserve portfolio to avoid risks.
China reduced its US Treasuries portfolio by $5.4 billion to $1.15 trillion in January, according to the data released by the US Treasury Department on Wednesday.
It is the third straight month of net selling after China's holdings of US debt reached a peak of nearly $1.18 trillion in October 2010.
If the Japan repatriation trade proves to be a real event risk, then this could even further dampen interest to support US debt.
With substantial foreign held US debt maturing over the next 36 months[7], if foreign governments withhold from buying, will the US accept higher interest rates?
Given the ideological background and the path dependency by the incumbent monetary authorities, the answer is a likely NO!
The US government can’t simply put her fragile banking system at risks, and thus, we can bet that QE 3, 4, 5 to the nth, will likely occur until the market recoils from these.
The above doesn’t even include the financial conditions of wobbly states and municipalities.
Financial conditions of US states have been plodding[8] while Municipal bonds, following a huge meltdown, has also been floundering. The rally in the Muni bonds have not erased the losses.
Controversial analyst Meredith Whitney, who recently presaged “50 to 100 sizable defaults to the tune of “hundreds of billions of dollars worth of defaults”[9], has been constantly under fire by the mainstream, for such prognosis. She has even been summoned by a US Congressional Panel. Anyone who goes against the government appears to be subject to censorship or political harassment.
The point is: given all these fragile conditions, will the Ben Bernanke led US Federal Reserve bear the onus of withdrawing, what has given Bernanke and the Fed an artificial aura of success?
[1] See Poker Bluff: The Exit Strategy Theme For 2010, January 11, 2011
[2] CNN Money.com QE2: Fed pulls the trigger, November 3, 2010
[3] Reuters.com Recession ended in June 2009: NBER, September 20, 2010
[4] Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Is QE3 Ahead?, Mises.org, March 18, 2011
[5] Northern Trust, Sales of Existing Homes Moved Up, But Median Price Establishes New Low, February 23, 2011 and
Food and Energy Prices Lift Wholesales Prices, But Pass through to Retail Prices is Key, March 16, 2011
[6] Economic Times India, China continues to trim its US debt to avoid risks, March 18, 2011
[7] Osborne, Kieran U.S. Government: Evermore Reliant on Foreign Investors Merk Investments, March 15, 2011
[8] Center on Budget Policies and Policy Priorities, States Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact, March 9, 2011
[9] New York Times, A Seer on Banks Raises a Furor on Bonds, February 7, 2011
The Philippine Daily Inquirer recently conducted a poll on where to place a surplus of P100,000 among experts.
The Inquirer writes,
WE ALL know this is true: One reason why the rich get richer, so to speak, is because they have access to better investment advice—the kind that is often unavailable to regular investors whose bank account balances don’t go beyond six digits...
Surprisingly, the results of our discussions with these financial experts showed that investment success was not achieved through secrets known only to the affluent, but on decisions that are mainly ... common sense.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so does investing.
That’s because everyone’s risk-reward profile is different or unique. They can be aggressive, conservative, or a mix of it.
So as with the diversity in time preference of expectations, e.g. long term, medium or short term.
This also applies to one’s comfort zone (e.g. biases such as preferred industry, “home bias”, or etc...).
The objectives can also be different, e.g. hedge against a currency, tacit influence of social pressures or etc...
The level of knowledge and the scale of knowledge acquisition, as well as, degree of exposure (e.g. passive or active) are also distinct, and matters significantly.
Thus, it would signify a folly to reduce an advice to a "one-size-fits-all" frame.
While common sense is indeed the answer, common sense, while available to all, seems to be unwittingly the least of the desired path. That’s mainly because common sense is boring stuff.
At the end of the day, P100,000 in spare cash should be allocated, perhaps based on the world’s most successful equity investor, Warren Buffett advice, “Risk comes from not knowing what you are doing.”
(hat tip: Jodie Espino)
We are made to believe that wind farms, as an alternative energy source, are environmental friendly.
Telegraph’s James Delingpole says otherwise... (bold highlights mine)
So wind farms don’t just despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, but they also
According to researchers at the University of St Andrews, the sound of offshore wind farms is likely to mess with the whales’ sensitive sonar systems and drive them ashore, where they get stuck on beaches and die.
Has anyone else noticed the gentle irony here? Well, let me explain with the help of my magic sledgehammer: save possibly the polar bear and the mighty snail darter there is no creature on the planet more totemic of green values than the whale. Saving whales is what greens do. Or rather what they used to do in the days when greens were actually interested in caring for the environment instead of, say, trying to destroy the capitalist system. But now, here they are actively promoting a form of renewable energy which in the process of producing next to no energy very expensively also does the most stupendous damage to the environment and the eco-system.
Hat tip and photos from Matt Ridley
Post script: Telegraph’s James Delingpole says that following the publishing of the whale study, the man who led the research team, dissociated himself from the article. (This only reveals how politically powerful the environmental movement is)
Nonetheless, Mr. Delingpole concludes,
What this means is that, though at this stage we know for absolute certain that wind farms despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, the possibility that they also lure whales to their doom remains at this stage an unproven hypothesis. (Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, then.)
So claims popular analyst John Mauldin in his latest newsletter.
You don’t even have to go that far back to see hyperinflation and how brilliantly it works at eliminating debt. Let’s look at the example of Brazil, which is one of the world’s most recent examples of hyperinflation. This happened within our lifetimes. In the late 1980s and 1990s, it very successfully got rid of most of its debt.
Today, Brazil has very little debt, as it has all been inflated away. Its economy is booming, people trust the central bank, and the country is a success story. Much like the United States had high inflation in the 1970s and then got a diligent central banker like Paul Volcker, in Brazil a new government came in, beat inflation, produced strong real GDP growth, and set the stage for one of the greatest economic success stories of the past two decades. Indeed, the same could be said of other countries like Turkey that had hyperinflation, devaluation, and then found monetary and fiscal rectitude.
In 1993, Brazilian inflation was roughly 2,000 percent. Only four years later, in 1997 it was 7 percent. Almost as if by magic, the debt disappeared. Imagine if the United States increased its money supply, which is currently $900 billion, by a factor of 10,000 times, as Brazil did between 1991 and 1996. We would have 9 quadrillion U.S. dollars on the Fed’s balance sheet. That is a lot of zeros. It would also mean that our current debt of 13 trillion would be chump change. A critic of this strategy for getting rid of our debt could point out that no one would lend to us again if we did that. Hardly. Investors, sadly, have very short memories. Markets always forgive default and inflation. Just look at Brazil, Bolivia, and Russia today. Foreigners are delighted to invest in these countries.
Sometimes I feel like dispensing the role of snopes.com a popular website which serves as “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.”
Well, here is the account of Brazil’s inflation-debt dynamics according to the Wikipedia.org, (bold highlights mine)
The stabilization program, called Plano Real had three stages: the introduction of an equilibrium budget mandated by the National Congress a process of general indexation (prices, wages, taxes, contracts, and financial assets); and the introduction of a new currency, the Brazilian real, pegged to the dollar. The legally enforced balanced budget would remove expectations regarding inflationary behavior by the public sector. By allowing a realignment of relative prices, general indexation would pave the way for monetary reform. Once this realignment was achieved, the new currency would be introduced, accompanied by appropriate policies (especially the control of expenditures through high interest rates and the liberalization of trade to increase competition and thus prevent speculative behavior).
By the end of the first quarter of 1994, the second stage of the stabilization plan was being implemented. Economists of different schools of thought considered the plan sound and technically consistent.
1994-present (Post "Real Plan" economy)
The Plano Real ("Real Plan"), instituted in the spring 1994, sought to break inflationary expectations by pegging the real to the U.S. dollar. Inflation was brought down to single digit annual figures, but not fast enough to avoid substantial real exchange rate appreciation during the transition phase of the Plano Real. This appreciation meant that Brazilian goods were now more expensive relative to goods from other countries, which contributed to large current account deficits. However, no shortage of foreign currency ensued because of the financial community's renewed interest in Brazilian markets as inflation rates stabilized and memories of the debt crisis of the 1980s faded.
The Real Plan successfully eliminated inflation, after many failed attempts to control it. Almost 25 million people turned into consumers.
The maintenance of large current account deficits via capital account surpluses became problematic as investors became more risk averse to emerging market exposure as a consequence of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the Russian bond default in August 1998. After crafting a fiscal adjustment program and pledging progress on structural reform, Brazil received a $41.5 billion IMF-led international support program in November 1998. In January 1999, the Brazilian Central Bank announced that the real would no longer be pegged to the U.S. dollar. This devaluation helped moderate the downturn in economic growth in 1999 that investors had expressed concerns about over the summer of 1998. Brazil's debt to GDP ratio of 48% for 1999 beat the IMF target and helped reassure investors that Brazil will maintain tight fiscal and monetary policy even with a floating currency.
In short, monetary reform via the dollar peg (first), fiscal austerity and the move towards greater economic freedom resulted to the reduction of Brazil’s debt.
Here is the account of the World Bank... (bold emphasis mine)
Brazil’s debt decomposition indicates that primary fiscal balances and real GDP growth have been the most significant debt-reducing factors between 1993 and 2003. Brazil’s primary fiscal balance, which has improved significantly in the recent past, has provided the largest debt-reducing contribution, in particular since 1999. Real GDP growth was responsible for a debt decline of 9.0 percent of GDP over the decade.
Apparently the World Bank says the same-fiscal side reforms functioned as the critical factor in Brazil’s debt reduction.
And here is a paper from the Inter-American Development Bank entitled The Structure of Public Sector Debt in Brazil
Afonso Sant’anna Bevilaqua, DionÃsio Dias Carneiro, Márcio Gomes Pinto Garcia, Rogério Furquim Ladeira Werneck, Fernando Blanco, Patricia Pierotti, Marcelo Rezende, Tatiana Didier writes, (bold highlights mine, italics theirs)
Given Brazilian inflationary history, the domestic bonded debt market was recreated in the mid-1960s with the introduction of indexed bonds (ORTNs), which were then conceived as an antiinflationary tool. The idea was that only the money financing of the fiscal deficits was inflationary. In the period of more than thirty years since its creation, the Brazilian open market has evolved into a very sophisticated one. The gross bond debt held by the private sector is currently around one fourth of a trillion US dollars; the megainflation of the 1980s and early 1990s did not inflate away the Brazilian debt.
During the megainflation, most of the debt was placed with banks (and later, with mutual funds managed by the banks) which used the bonds as the asset counterpart of inflation protected deposits (the indexed money, or domestic currency substitute). With the Real Plan this situation is gradually changing. The debt maturity has been lengthened (with a few setbacks, as the recent Asian and Russian crises), and more agents interested in becoming final holders of long debt—as insurance companies and pension funds—are becoming more important in the financial arena.
A radical change in Brazil debt maturity profile and similarly a change in the classification of debt holders had also been a part of Brazil’s debt reduction dynamics. This paper even highlights: “the megainflation…did not inflate away the Brazilian debt”.
Bottom line: Beware of oversimplified misleading analysis.
Faced with the prospects of a victorious comeback by Libya’s 42 year dictatorship under Muammar Gaddafi, the UN approves a No-Fly zone over Libya.
The Marketwatch reports,
The United Nations Security Council voted 10 to 0 supporting the use of "all necessary measures" including the use of a no-fly zone to protect civilians and rebel forces in Libya from forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Russia and China, which held veto powers, abstained from the vote, along with three other council members. The passing of the measure is expected to lead to U.N.-backed military strikes in Libya within hours, according to media reports.
UN’s action represents a response to a potential slap on the face if Gaddafi forces wins.
Writes Lew Rockwell's Eric Margolis,
In a huge embarrassment for President Barack Obama, who has been demanding Gadaffi resign, the gutsy new US national intelligence director, Gen. James Clapper, told Congress that Gadaffi’s forces were winning. Fortunately, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the brakes, at least for now, on Republican hawks and the-only-good-Arab-is-a-dead-Arab neocons who were urging the US impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
There will also be many red faces in Europe. Libya is a major oil supplier. If Gadaffi survives and reconsolidates his rule, Europe will have to continue buying oil from him. Germany’s Angela Merkel and her pal Sarko will look very foolish.
That means the leaders of France, Germany, and Britain, who have been calling for the overthrow of Gadaffi, may have to make nice to him again, and even, horror of horrors, go to Tripoli and be filmed holding hands with the smirking Libyan dictator, decked out in one of his Marx Brothers military outfits. Revenge, Libyan-style, will be oh so sweet.
To save face means to intervene militarily which is what the No-fly zone is all about. Libya’s civil war will now evolve into an international war.
So the UN’s foreign policy appears designed to boost the self esteem needs of political authorities by getting their soldier’s hands bloodied and also by shifting away of resources from productive activities. In short, the self interest of politicians matter more than the public.
Also, reputational needs of political heads translates to benefits for the military industrial complex. So if it isn’t the banking elites, it is the military industrial elites that mostly benefits from government interventionism. Of course the banking elite is also tied to the military industrial complex indirectly since the banking elites has been the chief financers of government expenditures.
Japan’s fundamental problem today is the risk of nuclear contamination and disaster recovery reconstruction. In dealing with latter, since Japan is a nation largely without resources, it will have to import them. In other words, her economic pattern will likely shift from export oriented to import dependent reconstruction.
So how do Japan and the G-7 address this predicament? Inflate the system!
This from Bloomberg, (bold highlights mine)
The Group of Seven will jointly intervene in the foreign exchange market for the first time in more than a decade after Japan’s currency soared, threatening its recovery from the March 11 earthquake.
Japan began the effort, sending the currency down 3.1 percent against the dollar at 9:34 a.m. in Tokyo. Each of the G-7 members will sell yen as their markets open, Japan’s Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda told reporters in Tokyo today. The G-7 said in a joint statement after a conference call of its finance ministers and central bank chiefs that it will “provide any needed cooperation” with Japan.
Japan’s central bank also said in a statement that it will pursue “powerful monetary easing” as policy makers sought to reduce the threat the world’s third-largest economy sinks into a recession. The Nikkei 225 Stock Average gained after the announcements, paring losses to 12 percent since the quake and ensuing tsunami killed thousands and led to rolling blackouts and radiation leaks at a nuclear plant.
More from the same article...
The Bank of Japan has been pouring cash into the financial system to stabilize money markets and on March 14 doubled an asset-purchase fund to 10 trillion yen, pledging to step up purchases of securities including government debt, exchange-traded funds and real-estate investment trusts.
Noda and Economic and Fiscal Policy Minister Kaoru Yosano sought to quell speculation driving the yen higher yesterday. Noda said markets were nervous and Yosano said there was no basis for an argument that the nation’s insurance companies were repatriating foreign assets to pay for earthquake damage.
“The speculation was that Japanese life and casualty insurers will repatriate dollar-denominated assets to secure funds in the wake of the earthquake,” Yosano told reporters in Tokyo yesterday. “But they have ample cash, deposits and other liquid assets,” he said, adding that the Financial Services Agency and Bank of Japan have confirmed insurers aren’t selling their dollar assets.
Weakening the Yen would make imports more expensive at the time when the Japanese would need alot of resources.
Moreover a weak yen hardly deals with the risk of nuclear contamination.
So you see, Japan isn’t trying to deal with her fundamental problems. Instead Japan and the G-7 is trying to goose up the stock markets and other financial markets in order to save the banking elite. As well as, approach the economic recovery angle from the wealth effect-aggregate spending point of view.
See how predictable they are!
A Wall Street axiom says, “Don’t fight the Fed”. I’d paraphrase this and say ‘don’t fight central banks and governments determined to destroy the purchasing power of your money, be it the US dollar or the Yen or the Peso’.
And this is why increasing cash balances represents fighting the major trend.
The Daily Mail says
But 39 out of the 50 states – including New York and Tennessee – have moderate to high seismic hazard risk.
That still a lot better compared to the Philippines...
...where except for a few spots, the entire archipelago seems in a high risk zone. Map from USGS
The Philippines is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire belt, where “About 90% of the world's earthquakes and 80% of the world's largest earthquakes occur”
Have a nice day.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see one of mainstream media join in the bashing of the US Federal Reserve.
The CNN Writes,
Since it was created in 1913, the Federal Reserve hasn't exactly had the best track record of predicting booms and busts.
Not to mention, its leaders have had some embarrassing sound bites along the way, whether they're referencing punch bowls or helicopters.
Here are some of the Fed's biggest bloopers over the years.
Go to the slideshow here
This just goes to show how Fed critics, led by Ron Paul and the Austrian School, have been gradually moving from the fringes and into the mainstream.
I earlier wrote about the impact of natural disasters on stock markets as mostly short-term in duration.
Eventually, markets write them off or discounts or reappraises ‘uncertainty’ into ‘risk’.
The Economist has a good depiction of such discounting process on the stock markets as seen in several major disasters via the graph below...
From the Economist
UNCERTAINTY over the extent of the damage caused by the earthquake in north-east Japan on March 11th, and the associated radiation leak at the Fukushima Daichi power station 140 miles (225km) north of Toyko, has made trading on Japan’s stockmarket an eventful affair. The Nikkei 225 index fell 17.5% in the three trading days following the catastrophe, wiping some ¥37 trillion ($458 billion) off equities. This compares unfavourably with market reactions to other disasters. Once the New York Stock Exchange had reopened six days after the September 11th terrorist attacks, the S&P 500 fell by 11.6% over five trading days, but after a further 14 days it had recovered to its pre-disaster level. After Japan’s last severe earthquake in the city of Kobe in 1995 the Nikkei 225 fell by 7.6% over the next four trading days, but it did not recover to its pre-earthquake level for another 11 months. The Nikkei 225 regained some lost ground today, closing up 5.7%. The Japanese will be hoping for the same bounce back in their own fortunes.
As I earlier said, while the earthquake-tsunami event had been predictable or was expected to happen (except for the exactitudes), the uncertainty over the scale of damage from the unfolding nuclear accident has been the black swan event.
Since this has yet to be resolved, the escalating risks of radiation leakages continue to linger or haunt the markets, hence the prolonged selling pressure.
The question remains if there are other hidden but more powerful forces at work which operates on the cover of the unfortunate Japan’s nuclear episode.
Japan’s triple whammy of nuclear-earthquake-tsunami has likewise slammed on the world’s stock markets.
Developed economy stock markets which earlier this year had outperformed the world have been the hardest hit, and are now laggards
Here is an update of the performances of the world’s bourses since Japan’s disaster struck.
According to Bespoke Invest,
The average year to date stock market performance of the 79 countries listed has now turned negative (-2.20%). The average performance of the countries since 2/18 is -4.38%. As shown, Japan is down the most since 2/18 with a decline of 16.13%. Germany and France rank 2nd and 3rd worst with declines of 12.29% and 11.08% respectively.
Most of the world’s market has turned red. Although some like the BRICs (except Brazil) and ASEAN has been little scathed so far.
However, with the way the markets have been performing overall (I mean, currencies, bonds, commodities, stocks), I suspect that Japan’s calamity has only instigated and could be masking the unseen driving force behind the series of downdraft.
And it’s called the TIGHTENING of the monetary environment—as many EM central banks have been raising interest rates while authorities of developed economies seem to be conditioning the markets of the same prospective actions despite the calamity. I’d like to see more evidence on this.
Speaking of du jour anxieties, the Economist gives us a roster of the world’s largest nuclear energy producers.
Writes The Economist,
THE explosions and meltdown fears at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant that followed Friday’s earthquake have increased concerns in Japan about the safety of nuclear power. The country is not well placed to move away from it though, with only America and France producing more electricity from nuclear sources. Germany, which yesterday suspended a deal to delay closing its ageing nuclear plants, is the world’s sixth-largest producer. In percentage terms the story is rather different. Nuclear power in Japan accounts for just 29% of total domestic power production, putting Japan 15th on the list of the most nuclear-reliant countries. It ranks far below France, where nuclear power makes up three-quarters of electricity production.
This should give nuclear phobes lots to chew on.
