Uncertainty And Pessimism Bias

Popular blogger and lawyer Barry Ritholtz has a great piece on uncertainty at the Bloomberg.

Mr. Ritholtz writes, (bold highlights mine)

Wall Street has a sweet tooth for such investing maxims. They infect the trading community like influenza in December. Repeat mindless dictums ad nauseam, and they soon become the accepted wisdom.

The problem with these supposed truisms is they are no more accurate than the flip of a coin. A closer look at this uncertainty meme reveals it to be a false-ism -- one of those emotionally appealing phrases that ping around trading desks. The lack of evidence supporting their premise seems to matter very little.

To recognize how meaningless these statements are, consider the opposite: Could markets function without uncertainty? It takes only a little thought to realize that markets actually thrive on doubt, imperfect information and a lack of consensus.

Uncertainty drives the market’s price-discovery mechanism. Investing requires there to be differences of opinion. When there is broad agreement as to an asset’s fair value, trading volume falls. Without any uncertainty, who would take the opposite side of your trade?

History teaches that whenever the opposite occurs -- when certainty overwhelms uncertainty -- the herd tends to be wrong. In rare instances, when there is a near-total lack of uncertainty in the market, the outcome is usually a spectacular disaster.

Should the prospects of uncertainty prompt us to hide in our proverbial shells?

The answer is NO. What matters is the understanding of the risk-reward tradeoff.

Here is Mr. Ritholtz again,

When we discuss uncertainty, what we are really discussing is risk. All unknown outcomes contain risk, and therein lies the possibility of loss. Risk is inherent in the concept of uncertainty. However, anyone looking for performance must embrace risk, for without it, there can be no reward...

And what to do with people who always preach ‘uncertainty’?

Once more Mr. Ritholtz,

The future, by definition, is unknowable. Investing involves making our best guesses about the value of an asset at some point after this moment in time. There will always be an element of uncertainty involved. We can discount various outcomes, engage in probabilistic analysis, but no one knows for certain what tomorrow will bring.

Those who claim to know fail to understand the most basic workings of markets. We need only consider the track record of Wall Street’s prognosticators to know the truth in this statement. As much as the future is uncertain, the most likely outcomes are well understood.

Exactly. Many who preach doom and gloom hardly managed to predict the markets accurately, yet they stubbornly insist that the world is headed for the gutters.

Uncertainty is NOT a valid reason to be maintain a bias on pessimism. A bias that largely emanates from:

-resistance to accepting critical changes, e.g. industrial age to information age

-undue fixation on several variables as harbinger for gloom or to quote Professor Bryan Caplan,

a tendency to overestimate the severity of economic problems and underestimate the (recent) past, present, and future performance of the economy.

-and finally, a bias which is predisposed at the attainment of a desired political and or economic outcome.

Again the brilliant Professor Caplan,

a general-interest prop to political demagoguery of all kinds. It creates a presumption that matters, left uncontrolled, are spiraling to destruction, and that something has to be done, no matter how costly or ultimately counterproductive to wealth or freedom. This mind-set plays a role in almost every modern political controversy, from downsizing to immigration to global warming.

Like Mr. Ritholtz, the implications of misunderstanding uncertainty imbued as a bias often leads to misdiagnosis of the risk-reward tradeoffs that leads to wrong conclusions and subsequently a poor or dismal track record in investment decisions.

A Video on Tax Cuts: Myths Versus Reality

Expiring tax cuts will be the next agenda of the incoming gridlocked US Congress.

And in this instructive video, Cato's Dan Mitchell debunks the propaganda used by the White House to justify higher tax rates on investors, entrepreneurs and the so-called wealthy class.

While this may be considered a domestic issue for Americans, this has geopolitical and international economic ramifications. For instance higher taxes rates may exacerbate capital outflows already impelled by the current monetary policies such as the QE 2.0.

Besides, Filipinos can learn about the fundamental ills of excessive government spending, the negative effects of taxation and the smoke and mirror propaganda employed by the 'powers that be' and their political cohorts, just to able sell the programs, that would unjustly inhibit property rights and curtail civil liberty, for the benefit of politicians.

Watch the video below.

Dr. Marc Faber: Party Now, Hangover Tomorrow

One of my favorite guru Dr. Marc Faber says that Asians should be thankful for QE 2.0.

In a way, I would agree with him

From Newsmax

"U.S. monetary policies have been very good for Asia, specifically for China because it fostered industrial-production growth in China, employment growth, wage increases, domestic consumption, increased demand for raw materials," Faber tells CNBC.

"That then lifted commodities prices. For that, actually the developing world, the emerging economies including China, Vietnam, Brazil and so forth should all send a 'Thank You' note to Mr. Bernanke."

But of course, we know Dr. Faber as being sarcastic.

That’s because he knows that bubble policies have intertemporal diametric effects: namely immediate (boom) and distant (bust).

Newsmax further quotes Dr Faber..

Excessive liquidity and dropping dollar bills from helicopters like Mr. Bernanke suggested — the problem with that is he doesn't know where the money will flow," Faber says.

"In this case, the excess liquidity flows into emerging economies and precious metals, and new bubbles are building up that at some point will burst.”

The bubble cycle in Asia appears to be flourishing as seen by the surging property prices in many Asian countries (of that’s aside from stock markets).

The Asian Investor reports a booming real estate market (above chart also from Asian Investor)

[bold emphasis added]

Transaction volumes in the Asia-Pacific increased 44% to $20.8 billion during the quarter as the region resumed its upward trend. It follows a second-quarter blip blamed on domestic cooling measures brought in by Beijing.

Global transaction volumes also returned, rising 15% quarter-on-quarter to total $303 billion for the past 12 months – a 47% increase year-on-year.

Asia-Pacific accounted for 26% of global volumes in the third quarter, up from 21% in Q2 but down on 29% in the first three months, finds a report by the Asia-Pacific Real Estate Association (Aprea) and Real Capital Analytics (RCA).

“The general trend is a rising one in terms of global transaction volumes and that has been mirrored in Asia,” says Lok So, Aprea’s operations director based in Singapore. “Do we see transactions in Asia continuing to rise? You would expect so. In terms of investible real estate in the world, it is almost a no-brainer that Asia will get the lion’s share of that, driven by China.”

So yes, it still seems like party time.

But no, parties don’t last forever and the hangover will haunt us in the fullness of time.

Apples-To-Oranges Comparison: SM Group Versus Ayala

A friend recently forwarded an article from a local analyst analogizing the supposed “tale of the tape” in the coming boxing match between world champion and local politician Manny Pacquiao and challenger Antonio Margarito with that of Henry Sy companies vis-a-vis the Ayala Group.

Here is my edited/revised comment to my friend:

I'd say that Sy and Ayala is an apples to oranges comparison whether seen from property, banking or as holding company.

The Sy Group for instance owns the distinction of having 3 out 10 largest malls in the world (Forbes magazine) [11th is also from SM], that's because his malls cater to mostly mid-class markets, whereas Ayala's malls cater to higher end markets.

Besides Ayala doesn't compete in the mass production of malls.

This applies with banking too. BDO seems to be anchored on mall based clients, whereas BPI has been more traditional way of banking.

Even in management they differ too. Mr. Sy’s companies appear to be more family managed/oriented, in spite of the recently acquired financial heft, while the Ayala group seems to be more professionally or reliant on ex-family based managers.

As an analyst I don't see Sy and Ayala as worthy comparisons.

In our lingo, we call them specialization. Each of these companies specializes on what serves them best.

Of course another important misleading analogy is the comparison of business and sports.

Sports has a specific outcomes (win or loss at a given time frame or period) while businesses signify as a continuing process.

Besides businesses provide good or services that adds value to the company’s respective customers, which alternatively means businesses are NOT zero sum games, where one wins at the expense of the other.

Whereas only one protagonist will emerge as winner in the coming Pacquiao-Margarito match.

JETRO: Rapid Globalization To Spur Emerging Asia’s Outperformance

In the latest monthly outlook “Japan Looks for Economic Growth in Emerging Asia” by Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), a Japan government owned trade organization, JETRO cites Emerging Asia’s economic prospects as very promising. (hat tip: Keith Rabin of KWR International)

The reason: (bold emphasis mine)

The dynamics of the global economy are changing. During the past century, global economic growth was primarily driven by activity in the “the three locomotives,” the US, EU and Japan.

Rapid globalization, however, is leading to new innovations, such as the proliferation of highspeed telecommunications and enhanced logistical infrastructure. This is resulting in a more connected, multi-faceted world. Economically, these changes allow companies to coordinate over long distances to optimize their supply chains and reduce their cost structure by moving production to developing economies. Building from a lower income baseline, stronger growth is helping to raise living standards and turn these developing economies into markets in their own right. As a result, they are now becoming the primary incremental drivers of global consumption and production.

And Emerging Asia's thrust towards deeper globalization have been anchored on manifold Free Trade Agreements (FTA) which would not only integrate Asia but foster more free trade with the world.

Why Mercantilists Are Wrong (Again)

The Chinese yuan may not be as undervalued as expected by present day mercantilists.

According to the Economist, (bold highlights mine)

The yuan may well still be undervalued but our index suggests American manufacturing should have less to fear from Chinese competition than it did five years ago. Until June 2009 appreciation was largely because of the stronger yuan. Since then it is largely because China’s unit labour costs have grown much faster than America’s. Employers in China’s coastal factories have suffered labour shortages and strikes. America’s factories have reported strong productivity gains as they have wrung more out of the workers that survived the recession (although those gains will be hard to repeat).

Of course, China and America do not trade only with each other. China’s big surpluses and America’s big deficits depend on the real exchange rate between them and all of their trading partners. But calculating that would require timely estimates of unit labour costs for all of China’s trading partners. That is a bit too laborious.

The Economist is correct to point out implicitly how wrong present day mercantilists unduly fixate on China’s currency as the main mechanism for global trade.

These mercantilists allude to trade imbalances as the root of all economic problems and thus recommend policies grounded on ‘restoring balance’ via curtailing trade or applying protectionism (tariff, and controls) or inflationism (currency wars)

Yet the mercantilist perspective deliberately neglects or disregards all other variables or factors which mistakenly presume that the world operates in a “ceteris paribus” or an imaginary two nation world of US and China. Yes, they love to fantasize a world beyond or outside of reality.

Contrary to the mercantilist orthodoxy, trades imbalances are NOT the problem. Instead trade imbalances account for as symptoms of evolving geopolitical and world economic conditions and patterns which had been brought upon by present policies.

One of which is the Triffin Dilemma, which according to the Wikipedia.org, is the paradox by which “the country issuing the global reserve currency must be willing to run large trade deficits in order to supply the world with enough of its currency to fulfill world demand for foreign exchange reserves”.

Another is globalization.

Importantly, trade imbalancess signify as outcomes from voluntary action and not of government mechanistically engaged in trade for no apparent reason at all.

It is individuals who buy or sell services even if it is done with other individuals abroad.

Yet the mercantilist logic goes:

If I frequent my favorite pizza parlor, whose food I savor, which means I repeatedly incur a deficit with the pizza parlor, then the pizza parlor should be forced by edict to obtain my services (as a stock market agent) even if they refuse to get involved in the stock markets in order to balance our trade. By doing so, my favorite Pizza Parlor would only serve to people who they are willing to balance out which alternatively means going out of business. This circular reasoning by the mercantilists is all patent nonsense.

Individuals conduct trade to fulfil specific needs. And the division of labor and comparative advantages channelled via voluntary exchange is what allows our needs to be met. Territorial or geographic boundaries does not change this perspective.

And forcing people to balance trade would result to REDUCED trades, which ultimately leads to impoverishment via higher prices, shortages, diminished of choice of available products, inferior qualities and etc.

Besides, contrary to conventional mercantilists expectations, exports ALONE do NOT make a country prosperous. This mercantilist perspective, which aims to increase ‘surpluses’ by fiat or protectionism, actually confuses wealth with money and have long been demolished by Adam Smith (bold highlights mine)

I thought it necessary, though at the hazard of being tedious, to examine at full length this popular notion that wealth consists in money, or in gold and silver. Money in common language, as I have already observed, frequently signifies wealth, and this ambiguity of expression has rendered this popular notion so familiar to us that even they who are convinced of its absurdity are very apt to forget their own principles, and in the course of their reasonings to take it for granted as a certain and undeniable truth. Some of the best English writers upon commerce set out with observing that the wealth of a country consists, not in its gold and silver only, but in its lands, houses, and consumable goods of all different kinds. In the course of their reasonings, however, the lands, houses, and consumable goods seem to slip out of their memory, and the strain of their argument frequently supposes that all wealth consists in gold and silver, and that to multiply those metals is the great object of national industry and commerce.

The two principles being established, however, that wealth consisted in gold and silver, and that those metals could be brought into a country which had no mines only by the balance of trade, or by exporting to a greater value than it imported, it necessarily became the great object of political economy to diminish as much as possible the importation of foreign goods for home consumption, and to increase as much as possible the exportation of the produce of domestic industry. Its two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation.

In short, wealth is acquired through capital accumulation via savings and investment and expressed through voluntary exchange.

In truth, the undeserved obsession towards trade imbalances represent as selective perception and data mining applied by modern day mercantilists in order to justify all sorts of interventionism. They apply fallacious ‘cart before the horse’ reasoning.

Seen from the bigger picture trade deficits are part of the international transactions that can be seen from Balance of Payment (BOP) data where trade deficits are fundamentally offset by capital flows.

Professor Mark J. Perry points out that under double-entry accounting, debits have to equal credits, which applies to BOP accounting:

BOP = CURRENT ACCOUNT + CAPITAL ACCOUNT = CREDITS - DEBITS = 0

Professor Perry additionally writes,

The current account and capital account are the two main components of the U.S. Balance of Payments (BOP), which is a record of all international transactions for both: a) trade flows and b) capital flows in a given period. Every international transaction (e.g. export, import, U.S. investment abroad, foreign investment in the U.S.) is recorded on a double-entry accounting basis, so that each transaction involves both a debit and credit.

Professor Perry further notes that alarmism over deficits are unwarranted for the following reasons: (bold highlights mine)

1. There are no BOP deficits once we account for all international transactions, both for: a) goods and services, and b) financial transactions. For all of the one-sided coverage in the press about the "trade deficit," you would almost never even know that there is an offsetting "capital surplus" or "capital inflow." It's important for the general public to understand that trade deficits are offset by capital inflows on almost a 1:1 basis, resulting in a "balance of payments" for international transactions. When the public constantly hears about "trade deficits" without any understanding of the offsetting surplus, that economic ignorance allows politicians and special interest groups to exploit the general public, by advancing and promoting protectionist trade policies aimed to reduce the "trade deficit," or by refusing to approve trade agreements between Chile, Panama and Korea, etc.

2. The "trade deficit" generates so much negative coverage, that the significant advantages of capital inflows from abroad get frequently overlooked. Since 1980, the U.S. has attracted almost $8 trillion of foreign investment, which has provided much-needed equity capital that has allowed U.S. companies to start or expand, has provided much-needed debt capital that has also funded the expansion of American companies, along with providing debt capital for U.S. consumers in the form of mortgages, student loans, and car loans. Some of the $8 trillion of investment includes billions of dollars of Foreign Direct Investment, which has funded thousands of new projects in the U.S. (Toyota factories for example) and created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

This goes to show that “imbalances” serve more as political talking points meant to promote dogmatism than of observing factual operating circumstances.

Moreover what matters most is what mercantilists refuse to bring up in the imbalance debate: what seems to ail the US, isn’t China, but the entitlement mentality effected by the political leadership through inflationary policies (such as the recent housing bubble).

The negative effects of inflationism can be broken down into the following

-diverts resources to one that is not desired by the markets.

-crowds out the private sector

-generates systemic malinvestments.

-causes overvaluation in assets or the currency.

-misallocates the distribution of economic weighting towards areas preferred by government at the expense of the consumers.

-raises the costs of living.

-distorts corporate profitability and income streams

-raises the cost of doing business which translates to reduced competitiveness

-destabilizes the economy from the boom bust cycle which eventually leads to a consumption of capital.

The mercantalism-inflationist agenda does the opposite of what it intends to accomplish.

Applying real life examples, if the mercantilists-inflationists school is correct then Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba and Burma should have been the most prosperous countries (having been closed economies).

Ironically, the opposite is true, nations that have been economically free, are those whom have been prosperous.

Unfortunately reality isn’t what mercantilists are concerned with. Political religion is.

World Bank Chief Robert Zoellig: Bring Gold Back As Part Of The New Monetary Order

I never imagined how quickly developments have been shaping in the direction of my perspectives.

Here is what I wrote last Sunday

Global Central banks appears to be rediscovering gold as possibly reclaiming its role as money in a new monetary order. A new monetary order is not question about an if, but a when…

Those who obstinately relish the bias that gold is nothing but a barbaric relic will likewise suffer from taking on the wrong positions. But they eventually will succumb to the shifting expectations as with many monetary authorities today. The reflexive process of having prices influence fundamentals has clearly been taking shape.

Here is from Monday’s news (Reuters)… [bold highlights mine]

The world's largest economies should consider gold as an indicator to help set foreign exchange rates, the head of the World Bank said on Monday in a proposal that threw open the acrimonious currency debate days before a summit of G20 nations.

Writing in the Financial Times, World Bank President Robert Zoellick called for a new monetary system to replace the floating rates adopted in 1971 known as Bretton Woods II…

The former U.S. trade representative, who served in several Republican administrations including Treasury, said the new system "is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and (a Chinese yuan) that moves towards internationalisation and then an open capital account".

"The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values," he added.

The geopolitical pressure for a monetary reform possibly anchored on gold appears to be mounting.

Quote Of The Day: Germany’s Export Strength Comes From Competitiveness And Not Surpluses

My quote of the day comes from Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (Wall Street Journal)

Germany's exporting success is based on the increased competitiveness of our companies, not on some sort of currency sleight-of-hand. The American growth model, by comparison, is stuck in a deep crisis…The USA lived off credit for too long, inflated its financial sector massively and neglected its industrial base. There are many reasons for America's problems—German export surpluses aren't one of them.

Some public officials get it right.

QE 2.0: It’s All About The US Banking System

``But the administration does not want to stop inflation. It does not want to endanger its popularity with the voters by collecting, through taxation, all it wants to spend. It prefers to mislead the people by resorting to the seemingly non-onerous method of increasing the supply of money and credit. Yet, whatever system of financing may be adopted, whether taxation, borrowing, or inflation, the full incidence of the government's expenditures must fall upon the public.” Ludwig von Mises

It’s time for a little gloating.

Last week we noted how global financial markets would likely respond to two major events that just took place in the US this week.

Globalization Versus Inflationism

We noted that while the outcome of the US elections would matter, it would be subordinate to the US Federal Reserve’s formal announcement of the second phase of the Quantitative Easing or QE 2.0.

Nevertheless we mentioned that in terms of the US Midterm Elections, still the odds greatly favoured a rebalancing of power from a lopsided stranglehold by left leaning Democrats towards the conservative-libertarian right that could result to what mainstream calls as “political gridlock”.

Such stalemate would thereby reduce the chances of government interventionism, which should have positive implications for both the markets and the US economy[1].

Figure 1: The Drubbing Of Keynesian Policies (USA Today[2])

Of course, what the surveys earlier conveyed had been merely translated into actual votes-Americans largely repudiated the highhanded Keynesian spend and tax policies adapted by the Obama administration. This also signifies as a decisive defeat for President Obama’s illusory “Change we can believe in”.

Except for the Senate which had only 37 seats, out of the 100, contested, Republicans swept the House (239-188) and the Governorship position (29-18). Yet, even in the Senate, the chasm in the balance of power held by the Democrats had been significantly narrowed (from 57-41 to 51-46).

To rub salt into the wound, even President Obama’s former seat at Illinois was won by a GOP candidate[3], Mark Kirk.

The burgeoning revolt against interventionist Keynesian policies has likewise been an ongoing development in Europe[4].

And as we have repeatedly been pointing out, two major forces have been in a collision course: technology buttressed globalization (represented by dispersion of knowledge and the deepening specialization expressed through free trade) and inflationism (concentration of political power).

The rising tide against Keynesianism, which translates to a backlash from these two grinding forces, can be equally construed as a manifestation of an evolving institutional crisis or strains from traditional socio-political structures adjusting to a new reality.

As Alvin and Heidi Toffler presciently wrote[5],

``Bureaucracy, clogged courts, legislative myopia, regulatory gridlock and pathological incrementalism cannot but take their toll. Something, it would appear will have to give...

``All across the board –at the level of families firms industries national economies and the global system itself—we are now making the most sweeping transformation ever in the links between wealth creation and the deep fundamental of time itself. (italics mine)

For now, the forces of globalization appear to be the more influential trend.

Validated Anew: QE 2.0 Is About Asset Price Support

However, as we also noted, Keynesianism hasn’t entirely been vanquished[6]. They remain deeply embedded in most of the political institutions represented as unelected officials in the bureaucratic world. Importantly, they are personified as stewards of our monetary system.

Here is what I wrote last week[7],

``The QE 2.0, in my analysis, is NOT about ‘bolstering employment or exports’, via a weak dollar or the currency valve, from which mainstream insights have been built upon, but about inflating the balance sheets of the US banking system whose survival greatly depends on levitated asset prices.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, in a recent Op-Ed column[8] Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke justifies the Fed’s QE 2.0,

``This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion. (bold highlights mine)

Once again I have been validated.

The path dependency of Ben Bernanke’s policies has NOT been different[9] from his perspective as a professor at Princeton University in 2000 when he wrote along the same theme.

``There’s no denying that a collapse in stock prices today would pose serious macroeconomic challenges for the United States. Consumer spending would slow, and the U.S. economy would become less of a magnet for foreign investors. Economic growth, which in any case has recently been at unsustainable levels, would decline somewhat. History proves, however, that a smart central bank can protect the economy and the financial sector from the nastier side effects of a stock market collapse. (bold emphasis mine)

Figure 2: stockcharts.com: Global Equity Markets Explode!

The net effect of QE 2.0 has been almost surreal.

Global equity markets (DJW), as expected, skyrocketed to the upside from the higher than expected $600 billion or $75 billion a month (for 8 months) of US treasury long term security purchases that the Federal Reserve will be conducting with new digital dollars. Markets reportedly estimated the QE program at $500 billion[10].

And the Federal Reserve made sure in their announcement that $600 billion will not be a limiting condition. The FOMC said that they “will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability”[11].

It’s simply amazing how the Fed’s QE 2.0 transmission mechanism has been worldwide. Whether in Asia (P1DOW-Dow Jones Asia), Europe (E1DOW-Dow Jones Europe) or Emerging markets (EEM-iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index), the story has all been the same—markets breaking out to the upside.

I’d like to add that such bubble blowing policies has NOT been limited to the Federal Reserve.

Immediately after the Fed’s announcement, the Bank of Japan voted unanimously to support the domestic stock market by engaging on their own version of QE that would include “exchange-trade funds linked to the Topix index and Nikkei Stock Average, and Japanese real-estate investment trusts rated at least AA, the bank said. It said it would begin buying Japanese government bonds under its new program next week.[12]” (bold emphasis mine)

Add to these the inflation of global central banks international reserve position to the tune of $ 1.5 trillion over the past 12 months[13].

Hence the consequences of massive inflationism are likely to be fully felt yet in the markets.

The False Premise: Aggregate Demand Story

The substantiation of our analysis isn’t limited to Bernanke’s statements alone. Markets have likewise bidded up the major beneficiaries of the QE 2.0 program—the banks and the financial industry (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Financial Industry: From Laggards to Leaders (charts from US global Investors and stockcharts.com)

The mainstream wisdom goes this way: Money printing does not create inflation. With low inflation, printing money is, therefore, needed to generate demand that would spur inflation. This form of circular reasoning[14], which characterizes Keynesian economics, is what is sold to public as rationalization for the current policy. The mainstream sees it as an aggregate demand problem that can only be addressed by money printing.

The mainstream fails to see that there is NO such thing as a free lunch or that prosperity cannot be conjured or summoned by the magic wand of the printing presses.

All these so-called technocratic experts refuse to learn from history or deliberately distort its lessons, where debasing money has always been meant to accommodate for the political goals or interests of the ruling class.

Yet monetary inflation eventually crumbles to nature’s laws of scarcity for the simple reason that it is unsustainable. Printing of money does NOT equate anywhere to the same degree as producing goods and services. Printing of money can be limitless, while production of goods and services are limited to the available scarce resources.

Unknown to many, printing of money is subject to the law of diminishing returns (getting less for every extra output or a law affirming that to continue after a certain level of performance has been reached will result in a decline in effectiveness[15]) and law of diminishing marginal utility (general decrease in the utility of a product, as more units of it are consumed[16]).

And it is why repeated experiments with paper money throughout the ages of human affairs have repeatedly failed[17]. And I don’t see why the grand US dollar standard experiment today as likely to succeed either. The QE programs fundamentally reflect on the same symptoms of any degenerating or festering de facto money regime. We should expect more QE programs to happen.

Yet the aggregate demand story is basically premised on debt. To promote aggregate demand is to promote debt. Debts either incurred by the private sector or by governments in lieu of the private sector. While productive debt and consumption debt are hardly distinguished, consumption debt is promoted. Savings are disparaged as economically harmful. And the promotion of debt is the essential or critical element to fostering bubbles.

Figure 4: World Bank: Banking Crisis Since the 1970s

Hasn’t it been a wonder that since the closing of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar window in 1971, bubbles became a permanent fixture worldwide?

Yet, the public hardly can see through who the major beneficiaries from the debt based aggregate demand story. Obviously, it is the banking and the financial industry as they represent as the major funding intermediaries or financiers to both the private sector and importantly to the government.

And the banking system had been structurally incented to hold (or buy or finance) government debts into their balance sheets as they have been classified as less risky assets and thus requires less capital in accordance to the Basel Accord[18].

During the last crisis the unholy alliance of the central banking-banking industry cartel had been exposed as seen by the trillions worth of bailouts by the US Federal Reserve[19].

Yet the politicized nature of central banking (everywhere) obviously leads to cartel structured relationships, as survivability depends not on profitability based on market forces, but from the privileged conditions bestowed upon by the political strata.

And the QE 2.0, which I argued as having been unmoored from the prospects of the US or global economy, but rather aimed at safeguarding the balance sheets of the banking system has successfully boosted the prices of financial equity benchmarks, such as S&P Bank Index (BIX), the Dow Jones Mortgage Finance Index (DJUSMF), the S&P Insurance (IUX) and the Dow Jones US General Financial Index (DJUSGF), all along the lines of Bernanke’s design.

The industry that had miserably lagged[20] the recent stock market recovery in the US has in one week suddenly outclassed the rest.

Of course people who argue about the success or failure of policies frequently look at the effects depending on the time frame that support their bias.

For instance, policies that induce bubbles will benefit some participants, during its heydays. Hence, policy supporters will claim of its ‘success’ seen on a temporary basis as the bubble inflates. Yet overtime, an implosion of such bubbles would result to a net loss to the economy and to the markets. The overall picture is ignored.

And the same aspects would also apply to those arguing that the Fed’s rescue of the banking system has been worthwhile. They’re not. The benefits of a temporary reprieve from the recent crisis envisages greater risks of a monumental systemic blowup. If Fed policies had been successful, then why the need for QE 2.0?

So for biased people, the measure of success is seen from current activities than from the intertemporal tradeoffs between the short term and long term consequences of policies.

In other words, yes, the QE 2.0, which constitutes the continuing bailout of the US banking industry, seems to successfully inflate bubbles, mostly overseas. But at the end of the day, these bubbles will result to net capital consumption, if not the destruction of the concurrent monetary regime.

The next time a major bubble implodes there won’t likely be free lunch rescues as these will be limited by today’s massive debt overhang.

The Effects of QE 2.0: Promotes Poverty And A Shift To A New Monetary Order

Of course while the equity price performance of the US financial industry stole the limelight the next best performers have been the Energy and the Materials Index.

In other words, as I have long been predicting, the accelerating traction of the inflation transmission channels are presently being manifested in surging prices of commodities and commodity related equity assets aside from global equity markets.

While this should benefit equity owners and producers of commodity related enterprises, aside from the financial sector, those who claim that inflationism is justifiable and a moral policy response to the current conditions are just plain wrong. Such redistributive policies to the benefit of the banking sector come at the expense of the underprivileged.

What is hardly apparent or seen is that the current government structured inflation indices have been vastly underreporting inflation.

Yet surging agricultural and food prices would not only harm a significant percentage of financially underprivileged by reducing their money’s purchasing power but also promote poverty in the US and elsewhere.

Figure 5: Food Expenditures By Income Level

Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge quotes a JP Morgan study[21], (bold emphasis mine)

When the Fed considers the possible consequences of a falling dollar resulting from QE2, it should perhaps focus on food and energy prices as much as on traditionally computed core inflation. First, the food/energy exposures of the lower 2 income quintiles are quite high (see chart). Second, the core CPI has a massive weight to “owner’s equivalent rent”, which suggests that the imputed cost of home occupancy has gone down. Unfortunately, this is not true for families living in homes that are underwater, and cannot move to take advantage of it (unless they choose to default and bear the consequences of doing so). Due to the housing mess, there has perhaps never been a time when traditionally computed core inflation as a way of measuring changes in the cost of things means less than it does right now.

Figure 6: ADB[22] Asia’s Share of Food Expenditure to Total Expenditure

And as said above the effects are likely to hurt the underprivileged of the emerging markets more than the US.

So inflationism or QE 2.0 poses as a major risk to global poverty alleviation and prosperity, a blame that should be laid squarely on these policymakers and their supporters.

Of course as the ramifications of inflationary policies worsen, the subsequent scenario would be for political trends to shift towards holding the private sector responsible for elevated prices and for ‘greed’ in order to institute more government control and inflationism.

As the great Ludwig von Mises once wrote[23],

``They put the responsibility for the rising cost of living on business. This is a classical case of the thief crying "catch the thief." The government, which produced the inflation by multiplying the supply of money, incriminates the manufacturers and merchants and glories in the role of being a champion of low prices. While the [the government] is busy annoying sellers as well as consumers by a flood of decrees and regulations, the only effect of which is scarcity, the Treasury [and the Fed] go on with inflation”

Here free trade will likely give way to protectionism; that is if public remains ignorant of true causes of inflation and if the world would stubbornly stick by the US dollar as preferred global medium of exchange.

Of course Asian nations were hardly receptive to the unilateral actions by the Federal Reserve. The conventional recourse in dealing with QE 2.0 has been via currency appreciation, tightening of domestic liquidity by raising bank reserves or increase policy rates or lastly ‘temporary’ capital controls. So far some countries as South Korea have threatened to impose some variation of capital controls.

Yet we should expect the world to shift out of the US dollar regime once inflationism becomes rampant enough to pose as a meaningful hurdle to national economic development and global trade. The Bloomberg quotes China’s Central Bank adviser Xia Bin[24],

``China should counter the U.S. through regional currency alliances, speeding international use of the yuan and seeking stability in exchange rates through the Group of 20, which holds a summit next week”

A currency from a political economy that engages in significantly less inflationism, has deep and developed sophisticated markets, has a convertible currency and hefty geopolitical exposure is likely to challenge the US dollar hegemony, whether this would be the yuan (which for the moment is unlikely) or the Euro, only time will tell.

Of course, we can’t discount gold’s role in possibly being integrated anew in the reform of the monetary architectural system.

Figure 7: Virtual Metals[25]: Central Bank Gold Holdings and Sales

Global Central banks appears to be rediscovering gold as possibly reclaiming its role as money in a new monetary order. A new monetary order is not question about an if, but a when.

Once as net sellers, central banks seem to be transitioning into potential net buyers.

So again, our peripheral insight seems being validated with the ongoing process of shifting expectations by authorities on the functions of gold.

As I pointed out last year[26], gold is presently seen by an ECB official as a form of economic security, risk diversification, a confidence factor and an insurance against tail risks. Once these factors become well entrenched, a store of value role would likely be the next step. And more QE’s would only serve to push gold towards such a path.

Those who obstinately relish the bias that gold is nothing but a barbaric relic will likewise suffer from taking on the wrong positions. But they eventually will succumb to the shifting expectations as with many monetary authorities today. The reflexive process of having prices influence fundamentals has clearly been taking shape.

With gold prices at $1,390 mainstream economists like celebrity Nouriel Roubini[27], who last year debated savvy investor Jim Rogers and declared “Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense”, must be squirming on his seat for the likelihood to be proven wrong once again.

---

[1] See US Midterm Elections: Rebalancing Political Power And Possible Implications To The Financial Markets, October 31, 2010

[2] USA Today, 2010 Elections: Live Results

[3] Politico.com Roland Burris will serve in November, November 5, 2010

[4] See An Overextended Phisix, Keynesians On Retreat And Interest Rate Sensitive Bubbles, October 25, 2010

[5] Toffler, Alvin and Toffler, Heidi Revolutionary Wealth Random House p.40

[6] See Trick Or Treat: The Federal Reserve’s Expected QE Announcement, October 31, 2010

[7] Ibid

[8] Bernanke, Ben What the Fed did and why: supporting the recovery and sustaining price stability, Washington Post, November 4, 2010

[9] Bernanke, Ben A Crash Course for Central Bankers, Foreign Policy.com or wikiquote Ben Bernanke

[10] Macau Daily Times Asian markets rise, dollar falls, November 5, 2011

[11] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2010 Press Release

[12] Marketwatch.com Bank of Japan holds steady, details asset plans, November 4, 2010

[13] Noland, Doug QE2 Credit Bubble Bulletin, Prudent Bear.com

[14] See Thought Of The Day: The Keynesian Circular Thought Process, June 22, 2010

[15] Wordnetweb.princeton.edu law of diminishing returns

[16] Wiktionary.org law of diminishing marginal utility

[17] See Surging Gold Prices Reveals Strain In The US Dollar Standard-Paper Money System, November 1, 2010

[18] See The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds, June 9, 2010

[19] See $23.7 Trillion Worth Of Bailouts?, July 29 2010

[20] See The Possible Implications Of The Next Phase Of US Monetary Easing, October 17, 2010

[21] Durden Tyler, How Ben Bernanke Sentenced The Poorest 20% Of The Population To A Cold, Hungry Winter, Zerohedge.com November 5, 2010

[22] Asian Development Bank: Food Prices and Inflation in Developing Asia: Is Poverty Reduction Coming to an End? April 2008

[23] Mises, Ludwig von The Truth About Inflation

[24] Bloomberg.com Asians Gird for Bubble Threat, Criticize Fed Move November 4, 2010

[25] Virtualmetals.co.uk The Yellow Book September 2010

[26] See Is Gold In A Bubble? November 22, 2009

[27] See Jim Rogers Versus Nouriel Roubini On Gold, Commodities And Emerging Market Bubble, November 5, 2009

Should We Chart Read Market Actions From QE 2.0?

``We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present." - Adlai E. Stevenson

Now we know that no trend moves in a linear fashion.

Yet we cannot be heavily reliant on chart actions to determine the “overbought or oversold” conditions from which to base our positions.

In any major trend (bear or bull cycles), overstretched markets or securities can last for an extended period.

Besides, chart actions greatly depend on patterns from past performances in the probabilistic assumption of a recurrence. The operating word is here probability.

But charting does NOT incorporate the prospective stimulus-response and action-reaction by the public to the ever fast evolving highly fluid environment nor does charting impute exactly similar conditionalities from which decisions had been shaped. This is despite some successful repetition of patterns.

For instance can charting say to what degree the markets will react to a sustained QE? The answer is NO.

And it is from such dimensions that I accurately debunked earlier claims by perma bears of the supposed repetition of the Great Depression, through the alleged similarities in the unfolding of chart patterns[1].

For most of the perma bears, whom have been influenced by some form of (political or economic or cultural) bias rather than sound analysis, they can characterized by the frequent use of post hoc fallacy and data mining to support their desired outcome.

This is why I also correctly disproved earlier notions of chart based bearish patterns which ALL failed to pan out.

I earlier wrote[2],

``They never seem to run out of materials to throw in, after the earlier “death cross” and the ERCI leading indicator, whose effects remain to be seen, now they point to the Hindenburg Omen as a reason to take flight.”

Now that the actions have been reversed and that all former bearish patterns have evaporated, chartists have been talking about the bullish “Golden cross”. Duh!

Yet even if one looks at the charts, the synchronous breakouts in global markets imply a tailwind effect or “momentum” in favour of continuity going forward. As charts have yet to signify distribution or exhaustion.

Also the assumption that charts impute all the necessary information is similar to the flawed premises of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) which ignores the role of the individual entrepreneurial activities that generate variable outcomes and the erroneous implication that all participants have the same homogenous ‘rational’ expectations[3].

And in learning from the recently departed Benoit Mandlebroit, the father of fractal geometry, on why not to trust charts, Mr. Mandlebroit wrote[4],

``And in the fun-house mirror of logic of markets, the chartists can at times be correct...But this is a confidence trick: Everybody knows that everyone else knows about the support points, so they place their bets accordingly. It beggars belief that vast sums can change hands on the basis of financial astrology. It may work at times, but it is not a foundation on which to build a global risk-management system.” (bold emphasis mine)

In other words, Mr. Mandlebroit shares the analysis disputing the homogeneity of rational expectations incorporated in charting, such that everyone employing the same pattern recognition techniques would render charting to be impractical and an undependable tool for investment or trade.

For me, chart patterns have higher probability of repetitions only when it treads on major trends.

Yet I find more value in identifying the stages of the trend or the cycle, where charts only serve as supplemental role or a guidepost for entry and exit points rather than for main reasons to anchor on a major investment or trading decision.

Hence, given the current market actions and fundamental based developments brought about by QE 2.0, I am unlikely to recommend any position that would fight the major trend.

Remember, QE 2.0 represents uncharted waters in modern central banking, unless we’d include Zimbabwe Gideon Gono’s approach as part of this.

So why use traditional or conventional tools to engage in something unprecedented?

---

[1] See Seeing Patterns Where None Exist, February 17, 2010

[2] See The Importance of Peripheral Vision, August 23, 2010

[3] Shostak Frank, In Defense of Fundamental Analysis: A Critique of the Efficient Market Hypothesis

[4] Mandlebroit, Benoit B and Hudson Richard, The (Mis) Behaviour of Markets, Profile Books p .8

Oil Markets: Inflation is Dead, Long Live Inflation

There seems to be an ongoing dissonance in the oil or energy markets.

Bespoke Invest shows us that crude oil inventories “are now at their highest levels of the year”, while distillates and gasoline “both saw larger than expected draws in their stockpiles”.

Yet crude oil prices are approaching the April highs.

And as mentioned above it isn’t just crude oil, such dissonance is likewise extended to the gasoline markets (Gaso).

The obvious answer is that the recent actions don’t just reflect on the consumption pricing model but from the reservation pricing model.

As we previously pointed out, commodities are not just meant to be consumed (real fundamentals) but also meant to be stored (reservation demand) if the public sees the need for a monetary safehaven.

Thus, we seem to seeing inflation dynamics incrementally playing out in the commodity markets.

Meanwhile, there has also been a small recent pop in the natural gas market (NATGAS).

I’d be convinced of the deepening risks of the inflation cycle, when Natural Gas chimes in. So far, this hasn’t been so.

Yet the odd part is that mainstream says inflation hardly exist. I wonder what kind of world they seem to be living in.

Global Equity Markets Update: Peripheral Markets On Fire, Philippines Grabs Lead In ASEAN

Here is a nice update on the performances of global equity markets from Bespoke Invest

Says Bespoke Invest,

At the moment, the average 2010 performance of the 81 countries listed is +12.19%. As shown, Sri Lanka leads the way with a gain of 97.16%. Bangladesh ranks 2nd at 74.88%, followed by Estonia (62.46%), Lithuania (49.56%), and the Philippines (43.54%). Of the G-7 countries, Germany has done the best with a gain of 11.30%. Canada ranks 2nd at 7.24%, and the US ranks third with a gain of 6.78%. Japan has been the worst performing G-7 country with a decline of 13.15%. Italy and France are both down still for the year as well.

Of the BRIC countries, India is leading the way with a gain of 17.18%. Russia ranks 2nd at 11.08%, followed by Brazil (+4.84%) and then China (-7.51%).

Additional observations:

Only 17 out of the 81 bourses are in the red. This includes the crisis affected PIIGS, China (whose bourse has been repeatedly under siege from her government aimed at curtailing her inner ‘bubble’ demons) and Vietnam (agonizing from high inflation)

Another way to see this is that global inflationism has led a rising tide lifting all boats phenomenon

It’s been a tight race among peripheral emerging markets led by South Asia, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.

The relative performances of BRIC and G-7 bourses have been mixed.

The Philippines has eked out a marginal lead from Indonesia (this is based on local currency. For the moment I don’t have access to dollar based returns)