Sunday, March 29, 2015

Phisix 20th Record Close: Facts and Fantasy

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. - Friedrich Nietzsche

In this issue:

Phisix 20th Record Close: Facts and Fantasy
-Record Phisix 7,800: Rigging of the Index has now become a Daily Affair
-Record Phisix is as Symptom of Inequitable Transfers; Poverty Surges in 2014!
-Priced In USD, the Phisix Still Has to Beat 2013 Highs
-Contagion Risks; More on Why Basel Standards are Flawed
-The Different Hats of the BSP Chief
-Record Phisix 7,800: Benjamin Graham and David Dodd’s View of Overvalued PERs
-US Treasury’s OFR Warns on US Stocks! BOE Sounds Financial Instability Alarm as Four Central Banks Cut Rates!

Phisix 20th Record Close: Facts and Fantasy

20th record close. Amazing.

The Philippine Stock Exchange crows and rationalizes feat to[1]: The country's benchmark index closed ahead of its Asian counterparts as investors anticipate positive earnings results from more companies for the full year 2014. Investor confidence in our listed companies continues to sustain the upward trajectory of our market

There are many more things that meets the eye than what has been countenanced.

Record Phisix 7,800: Rigging of the Index has now become a Daily Affair


Every single session over the past week has been become handiwork of index managers! 

In other words, rampant violation of the SEC regulation code has hallmarked the record Phisix. (charts courtesy of colfinancial)



Let me further add of the remarkable accounts of “marking the closes” of last Tuesday (March 24) and Thursday (March 26). 

Last Tuesday (left), profit taking mode dominated the entire session. The Phisix traded at a range of about .4 to .5% lower than the previous day’s close. That’s of course until the last minute, where a three sector pump virtually erased two-third of the index’s loss of the day!

And following a sharp decline in the US markets Wednesday, most of Asia carried over the sentiment last Thursday. 

Yet similar to the previous three accounts of global selloffs, particularly, January 6, 2015, December 15, and October 16, 2014, index managers went into operations early in the morning to engage in what I call as “panic buying”. The panic buying amidst the selloff pushed the Phisix into positive territory (right). The index managers ensured that the day ended with oomph: The Phisix posted a .44% gain even as the entire Asia was almost in the red!

The objective appears to have been designed to show the Phisix as becoming independent or decoupled from the world! Phisix as superman!

The peculiar thing is that Phisix has just 6.5% above 7,400 yet manipulations have become so increasingly flagrant.

You see corrections have become impermissible. Charts are being deliberately drawn. This has been more than just a sign of hysteria, the rigging of the Philippine stock markets have become shamelessly and notoriously regular or routine.

The Phisix can’t stand on market forces alone without being rigged? The record Phisix needs false legs from unseen faces as props? Why?

And this is what constitutes record Phisix? A record which PSE officials pat on their backs?

Record Phisix is as Symptom of Inequitable Transfers; Poverty Surges in 2014!

The PSE doesn’t say that how such improprieties have been brazenly operating under their noses. And neither have there been any seeming attempt to address these infractions.

Of course, given that record Phisix benefits the establishment, I would expect that the PSE to just look elsewhere or keep a blind eye on current developments, and instead, rationalize current events to other seemingly plausible factors so as camouflage such unscrupulous actions taking place. And this is what has been happening.

For one, record Phisix which is a product of financial repression paints a popular notion that this has been about G-R-O-W-T-H.

Doing so enables and facilitates the government’s easy access to credit—directly (lowers bond yields, high demand for local currency and foreign currency government bonds) and indirectly (foreign capital flows, perceived lesser risks, credit upgrades, increased taxes from bubble sectors and etc…).

And because financial repression generates a credit fueled boom for both the government and for the formal sector with access to credit, the boom not only spawns instant gratifications for these sectors, but such translates to high popularity ratings for the administration. Popularity ratings thus pave way for government actions or government pet projects in the name of public welfare via infrastructure (PPPs), welfare or defense projects.

Second, since financial repression embodies an invisible transfer of resources from the public to the government indirectly channeled through institutions owned by the politically connected financial elites, the latter institutions has become secondary major beneficiaries.

Such boom has allowed these politically privileged institutions to absorb resources and likewise transfer risks from their undertakings to the public.

For instance, 30 companies has corralled 89% of the Php 675.2 billion local currency corporate bond markets as of 4Q 2014 (4Q ADB Bond Monitor) where a vast majority of them, whether listed or not (most have been listed), are owned or controlled by the elites. Think of the numerous hapless and gullible depositors whom have extended financing to these companies with measly returns* at the cost of potential credit risks!

*Measly returns could even be exaggerated. That’s because many of the recent coupons issued hardly offers any real returns—I mean real inflation and NOT statistical inflation adjusted returns.

Yet a lot these bond financing has been coursed through financial intermediaries owned by the elites. Go to a bank and ask for long term deposits, you will most likely be offered with bonds from their clients or their affiliated institutions.

All these benefits that accrue the elites have been owed to negative real rates–zero bound –financial repression policies.


And since the same sectors have been in control over media, the onslaught campaign in support of the credit financed mania

So here is simple anecdote of how the modus works. Project a boom (with the help of media and supply side). Let the public manically bid up on ridiculously overvalued assets (real estate and stocks, previously bonds) financed by credit due to negative real rates. Let asset managers create a sustained imagery of the boom through manipulation of the various indices and markets. Then companies of the elites absorb the public’s resources in exchange for rates that hardly covers real inflation rates while at the same time shifting the burden of risk to the public (via issuance of bonds and preferred shares, listing of secondary IPOs and etc. at free lunch rates or prices). 

The elites then send their money overseas, perhaps to hedge their holdings, thus the seeming capital flight from local residents in 2014.

The elites then reward themselves with titles to the prestigious list of the global elite class.

Thus record Phisix has been a symptom of such inequitable transfers. Yet today, such symptoms are being conducted desperately through market manipulation.

And speaking of inequitable transfers, I have written in the past how inflationism has signified an economic drag to the underprivileged. This has been expressed via self-rated poverty sentiment which has ballooned as money supply growth zoomed to 30%+ in 2014[2].
The so-called “transformational boom” has been prompting for an UPWARD trending self-diagnosed poverty. The implication from the above chart is that a large segment of the Philippine society has been paying the price for the benefit of a few. It would be misguided to say these groups have been “excluded” from growth, because it is precisely their resources that have been funneled to subsidize industries from financial repression policies or facilitated through the “continuing process of inflation”.
Yet the much ballyhooed boom in 2014 has paradoxically led to a rise in poverty!

Writing at the Inquirer, pollster Mahar Mangahas of the Social Weather Station (SSS) confirmed what I suspected[3]. (bold mine)
The rise of poverty last year reminds us yet again that growth in the Gross National Product, of itself, does NOT improve the lot of the poor. The so-called “growth elasticity of poverty”—see “Naive projection of poverty (Opinion, 1/24/2015)—that the World Bank read into the 2013 fall of poverty failed to operate in 2014.

Yes, there was growth in 2014S1 in the money incomes of the lower classes, said Dr. Balisacan, but it was overpowered by the inflation of prices of things the poor need. The inflation facing the poor is stronger than average inflation. In particular, the price of rice is needlessly high, because of the import monopoly of the National Food Authority. This monopoly should be abolished.
It’s nice to see Mr. Mangahas punctuate his message with an all caps “the Gross National Product, of itself, does NOT improve the lot of the poor”. 

GNP and GDP are nothing but accounting identities or tautologies. They hardly represent the real economy. This especially has been amplified for the Philippines which has a large informal sector. The growth stories have been accounted for by the major beneficiaries of invisible redistribution.

Mr Mangahas even goes on to say that inadequacies of statistics and surveys extrapolates that “the new official poverty rates are understatements.” (italics mine)

Wow. And I thought I was alone.

Yet sustained manipulation of the Phisix will NOT expunge the evils of invisible political transfers. 

Nevertheless regardless of its iniquities such dynamic isn’t sustainable. And manipulation of the index has simply been signs of desperation to perpetuate a flawed system.

Priced In USD, the Phisix Still Has to Beat 2013 Highs

There is another thing that the Philippine Stock Exchange didn’t say.

True, in peso terms the Phisix have been at a record.

But since about 15% of the domestic equity market has been held by foreigners, this means foreigners will look at the Phisix in US dollar terms.


In the context of the Phisix in US dollars, record highs have yet to be established.

The above chart represents a reconstruction of the closing prices of the Phisix, calculated based on the USD-peso exchange rate since mid 2012

Let us measure today’s record high with the 2013 high

The previous record by the Phisix in May 15, 2013 was at the closing prices of 7,392.2.

Then the equivalent USD-Php exchange rate was at Php 41.2. So dividing the Phisix with the exchange rate would give us a USD Phisix at 179.42.

Friday’s (May 27th) record close was at 7,877.96. The US Peso exchange rate of that day was at 44.76; hence, this gives us a US dollar calculated Phisix at 176.00.

If we juxtapose the records of May 2013 179.42 and Friday May 27 at 176 and compute for their variances, then we get a difference of 1.9%. This means that the US dollar Phisix has gap of 1.9% to fill—in order to equal the May 2013 highs.

And the only way for the 1.9% gap to get bridged is for the Phisix to rise faster than the falling peso or the peso stops fumbling.

Contagion Risks; More on Why Basel Standards are Flawed

Yet a stronger peso doesn’t seem to be a likely path.

In a recent speech[4], the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Chief Amando Tetangco Jr. AGAIN reiterates the same 3 risk factors in his previous deflation spiel as risk to the current environment, particularly “1) the uneven global economic growth;  (2) the uncertainty of the oil price path and the ambiguity of the underlying drivers of the oil price decline; and (3) the resulting divergence in monetary policy stance among major advanced economies”, and how these would influences the domestic markets and the economy
In the last year and a half, these factors have manifested themselves in the movement of global capital into US assets (away from core Europe and emerging markets), an appreciating trend in the US dollar and a decline in global long-term interest rates.  The rebalancing in global portfolios, as funds search for better yields, has surfaced in our domestic financial markets as volatility in the peso/dollar exchange rate, and in the local bond and equity markets.

Going forward, should the uneven global growth scenario persist, we may see this translate into more pronounced changes in trade patterns.
Contra the mainstream belief that the Philippines can decouple, it appears that the BSP chief understands that there will be transmission mechanisms that will likely lead to linkages in terms of financial asset and economic performance.

Let me cite an example the latest IMF report on Indonesia’s risk[5].(bold mine)

Corporate sector performance is showing signs of strain on the back of slowing economic growth and rising funding costs. Overall profitability and debt servicing capacity of listed companies in Indonesia have weakened. On the former, the return on assets fell slightly to 14.7 percent in the first three quarters of 2014, still high relative to international peers. On the latter, the share of companies with income insufficient to cover interest expenses increased to 21 percent in 2013, while the share of debt of these companies jumped to 30 percent—in excess of its peak in 2008. Stress appears more concentrated in the resources sector as a result of sluggish mining activities and falling commodity prices.

Pockets of vulnerabilities exist owing to rising corporate indebtedness, increasing concentrated leverage and corporate insolvency, and unhedged foreign currency debt. 

· Corporate debt has increased rapidly in recent years, reaching 34 percent of GDP as of end September 2014 (latest figures available) compared to 23 percent at end 2010, in part spurred by easy financial conditions in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. About 45 percent of the increase in corporate debt was financed by borrowings from abroad. Corporate external debt was US$118 billion (around 15 percent of GDP) at end September 2014—up by US$66 billion since end 2010, although about 60 percent of this increase was either FDI-related (i.e., financed by parent or affiliated entities) or incurred by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The greater reliance on external funding could also pose a refinancing risk, possibly exacerbated by major corporate distress, with about US$10 billion of bond and syndicated loans maturing in 2015.

· Concentrated leverage at highly indebted companies has also increased, coupled with rising corporate insolvency. Companies that were already highly indebted became even more indebted over the past few years, despite only a marginal increase in system-wide average leverage ratios. This concentration is seen in the aggregate debt-to-assets ratio of listed companies (weighted by individual companies’ outstanding debt), which has increased substantially to a level near its peak in 2009. In addition, the share of listed companies with negative equity has risen sharply, indicating potential for more widespread corporate defaults.

· Exposure to foreign exchange (FX) risk is not negligible. About half of corporate debt is denominated in foreign currency. Although around 70 percent of non-SOE foreign currency debt is estimated to have been incurred by companies with FDI-related funding and/or with FX cash flows, some companies are still subject to FX risk.1 A large rupiah depreciation could significantly undermine balance sheets of companies with inadequate hedging of their FX exposure, with market reports also suggesting that most hedging now in place will knock out at specific levels of the exchange rate
Yet despite the substantial buildup in Indonesia’s credit risk profile, ironically the IMF still expresses confidence that their banking sector will remain resilient “given strong capital buffers”.

I don’t share that confidence.


That’s the USD-Indonesian ringgit

The ringgit has been taking it to the chin and now has crashed to record levels. Question now is: To what extent will the current ‘capital buffers’ hold in the prospect of a sustained US dollar juggernaut vis-à-vis the ringgit??? Where is the breaking point for the system to snap?

If Indonesia’s system wilts and eventually cracks how will this affect the entire region? Do the big bosses of the BSP and their hordes of economists know?

In the above speech by the BSP chief he notes that Basel 3 serves as the Philippine banking system’s regulatory “primary safety net” but this hasn’t been the only standard.

Curiously the BSP chief generalizes that “the quality of loans has been improving, with NPLs continuing to fall”.

Really?


Does the above exhibit the validity of the above claim where the banking system’s “quality of loans has been improving”? 

Based on SMC’s full year 2014 Investor’s presentation, long term debt bulged by Php 32 billion to Php 483 billion while profits grew by only 28.1 billion!

SMC supposedly declares itself to be a profitable company, but debt continues to massively mount despite recent major asset sales (e.g. Meralco and PAL), why? Whatever happened to the proceeds of the asset sales? These have been spent on corporate expansions, rather than paying down debt? Why? Yet are these expansions guaranteed to deliver the much needed cash flows to eventually bring down these huuuuggggeeee debt levels?

Or has it been that profits have merely represented intracompany juggling of accounting numbers? Or has it been that stories have to be made to bewitch the public to sustain what has been SMC’s core method of financing: borrowing IN borrowing OUT or what the late Minsky calls the Ponzi finance?

In term of relative proportions, do you how big Php 483 billion is? It’s not just a number.

Well based on BSP data, as of December 2014, the Philippine banking system’s total resources has been calculated at Php 11.159 trillion. This means SMC’s 2014 debt has been equivalent to around 4.3% of the entire banking system!

As caveat, of course, not all of SMC debt has been from domestic banks (some are from bonds and some are foreign banks and financial institutions). Also the above data covers long term debt and hardly the short term ones which are also sizeable.

So what happens if Indonesia’s financial conditions shatters? Will capital flight be limited to Indonesia or will it spill over to the region and to the Philippines? If the latter, how will these affect the heavily levered domestic companies like San Miguel?

Again do the big bosses of the BSP and their hordes of economists know? Or is SMC the local equivalent of the US too big to fail or Systemically important financial institution where the BSP has already covert rescue plans for them?

Meanwhile NPLs as previously noted[6] hardly ever serve as leading indicators but at best are coincident indicators.
Non Performing Loans (NPLs) are coincident if not lagging indicators. NPLs are low because the current boom continues.NPLs become reliable indicators, when asset quality deteriorates or when the credit boom is in the process of reversing itself into a bust. Again they are coincident if not lagging indicators.
The mainstream would like to believe that there is some magical potion or formula on how to control credit with statistical variables even when the main policy itself PROMOTES credit.

This would be another version of cognitive dissonance applied to policy

In a recent interview[7], former Bank of Japan governor Masaaki Shirakawa questions the current reliance on bank capital standards in controlling of financial stability risk. (bold and italics mine)
The current assessment of financial stability risk that I often hear is that – because of the improved capitalization and increased liquidity buffers of financial institutions – there is no imminent threat. If I stress “imminent,” I do not disagree with this view.

But, at the same time, we have to recognize that financial crises over the past 20 years or so have taken on a different form every time. We cannot grasp the system’s vulnerability just by looking at average data. What is important is the distribution of positions and the correlation of risk factors. In this regard, we have to be attentive to the fact that we have been through a very long period of low interest rates. And, while I cannot specify the exact form of positions that could threaten financial stability, it is natural to think that various forms of potentially risky positions that we do not see clearly could be accumulating. Also, we have to be attentive to the behavioral changes in the government that these financial conditions could bring about
Shirakawa-san further advocates on the priority of controlling monetary policy that promotes debt than from implementing macroprudential policies…
Following the global financial crisis, there were many measures introduced in the area of regulation and supervision to make finance safer. Most of these measures are desirable. But, it is not enough to have a certain liquidity or capital buffer for a given amount of debt. What is more important is to avoid too much debt itself. And, we have to discuss this issue more seriously.

In this regard, we need some rethinking of the conduct of monetary policy. We have to wonder whether the current regime of monetary policy has a bias toward the creation of too much debt. For instance, if monetary policy is overly focused on price stability in the short term without paying due attention to the stability of the financial system, it may lead to excess debt creation by giving the sense that accommodative policy will extend into the future. Also, if central banks have too strong a preference for low volatility, providing insurance against a fall in asset prices, then this may lead to excess debt creation. Of course, macroprudential policy is important, but I don’t think it will be effective without a corresponding monetary policy adjustment.
Again obsession to statistical metrics hardly serves as guarantee to the soundness of a financial system. Statistics is not economics.

Instead a system that depends on the politicized distribution of credit via central banking fiat standard will always be vulnerable to boom-bust cycles or to hyperinflation.



Finally, has the strong dollar begun to exert its adverse influence to the stock markets of our neighbors?

If so, to what extent will the Phisix be shielded? Will the Phisix be subjected to the BSP’s observation that “The rebalancing in global portfolios, as funds search for better yields, has surfaced in our domestic financial markets as volatility in the peso/dollar exchange rate, and in the local bond and equity markets”

Can the index managers prevent a potential contagion?

Interesting.

The Different Hats of the BSP Chief

While the BSP chief omitted the word 'deflation' in his most recent speech, he structures his arguments from the basis which he previously argued of deflation risks. This implies of his continued deflation mindset.

In addition, the BSP chief appears to be engaged in serious cognitive dissonance.

First, in his lecture to journalists on how they should write about economics, he emphasized on the authorities’ ‘knowledge problem’, in particular how authorities are faced with the variability and fluidity of events for them to react. This striking commentary is an example: “There are no absolutes in dealing with these issues. There are many ifs and buts. And, a number of factors and variables, including concerns related to technology and geopolitics, would need to be considered. Friends, there is no crystal ball for these things.”[8]

I have even been smitten by his quote: “Economic numbers rarely tell the complete story when taken at face value. Therefore, a responsible journalist who seeks to offer readers a fuller appreciation of the information will examine the figures within a broader context or against an array of other relevant indicators.”

Yet in the recent speech he attempts to show the opposite, how BSP actions have been “proactive, preemptive and prudent”. In short, he shifts from the knowledge problem to the pretense of knowledge.

So different audiences, different hats, anything that panders to the audience hence the clashing messages.

Second, the proclivity to see the world in the context of deflation risks has so far prompted the BSP’s monetary board to maintain policy rates last week. This aligns with the BSP’s lowering inflation forecasts to 2.2% in 2015 while ironically projecting growth rates of 7-8%.

Given that “rebalancing in global portfolios” has already “surfaced in our domestic financial markets” that may “translate into more pronounced changes in trade patterns” how the heck can one project 7-8% growth rates if the above external conditions will be realized and transplanted to domestic conditions? How will say a sustained firming of the US dollar influence domestic interest rates which translate to borrowing or credit conditions, capital flows, trade and production process? Does he or the entire BSP know? Or has the BSP just been picking numbers from the sky to enthrall the crowd?

Importantly, since credit growth has been instrumental in delivering statistical economic growth, how on earth will this square with low inflation? Is the BSP suggesting that productivity growth—centered on largely construction-property and property related boom—will explode???!!! And because of such productivity blast, credit will serve less in the financing of economic expansion? This implies that 7-8% will be financed by savings and retained earnings??? What has these guys been S-M-O-K-I-N’?!

Does the BSP ever give a thought on how current debt levels will affect future growth?

Well as I have said in the past[9],
Debt represents the intertemporal distribution of spending activities. Borrowing money to spend simply means the frontloading of spending. The cost of debt financed spending today is spending in the future. Debt will have to be repaid at the expense of future spending. Of course there are productive and non-productive debts. But policies of financial repression via zero bound rates tend to promote non-productive ‘speculative’ and consumption debts.
Has the BSP identified which among the loan portfolio extended by the banks and by the bond markets have speculative or productive? Do they know of their proportionality and depth of possible chain links of creditors? The problem with looking in the prism of aggregates is to see and dissect things as a one size fits all phenomena.

Yes the government can manipulate statistics to show whatever they want, but they can’t make statistics put food on the table.

Statistics is not economics.

Record Phisix 7,800: Benjamin Graham and David Dodd’s View of Overvalued PERs

There is another thing that the PSE officials didn’t give an effort to explain at all.

They claim that record stocks represent “investors anticipate positive earnings results”

They didn’t explain that if record Phisix had indeed been about anticipation of positive earnings results, then why the proliferation of outrageous valuations?

Outlandish valuations have NOT been about positive earnings results but about performance, yield or momentum chasing rationalized on whatever that would stimulate such frenzied behavior. G-R-O-W-T-H has served nothing more than a shibboleth or a conditioned stimulus that triggers irrational behavior.

Yet here is why such rationalizations could be hazardous and dicey to one’s portfolio.

In a warning on US equities, the US treasury’s Office of Financial Research writes on why we shouldn’t rely on mainstream’s Forward Earnings
Forward PE ratios are potentially misleading for several reasons. First, forward one-year earnings are derived from equity analyst projections, which tend to have an upward bias. During boom periods, analysts often project high levels of earnings far into the future. As a result, forward PE ratios often appear cheap. Second, one-year earnings are highly volatile and may not necessarily reflect a company’s sustainable earnings capacity. Third, profit margins typically revert toward a longer-term average over a business cycle. The risk of mean reversion is particularly relevant today, because profit margins are at historic highs and analysts forecast this trend to continue.
Previously I have recently shown the LTM 3Q reported EPS by Phisix, its sectoral benchmarks and its member companies based on December reports from 2008-2014.

Let us see how the OFRs observations fare with developments in the Philippine setting. 

The OFR says of upward bias in earnings projections during boom.

2014 mainstream projection was at 6%, LTM 3Q data shows growth at 1.8%. √

The OFR says one-year earnings are highly volatile.

Given that—of the 29 issues with 2 year track record or more—there have been only 6 issues that had sustained earnings growth for 3 years, and 5 of these has been above 10, then this would mean another √

The OFR says profit margins typically revert toward a longer-term average over a business cycle

As explained before, growth has natural limits and thus this should be expected. Warren Buffett’s flagship Berkshire Hathaway should serve as great example. Nonetheless mean reversion over a business cycle will have to yet to be tested here. And that test will likely come soon.

Finally do you know what Warren Buffett’s mentor Benjamin Graham and his partner David Dodd thinks of buying issues with overpriced PERs[10]? (bold mine)
The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its price seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis. If a public-utility stock was selling at 35 times its maximum recorded earnings, instead of 10 times its average earnings, which was the preboom standard, the conclusion to be drawn was not that the stock was now too high but merely that the standard of value had been raised. Instead of judging the market price by established standards of value, the new era based its standards of value upon the market price. Hence all upper limits disappeared, not only upon the price at which a stock could sell but even upon the price at which it would deserve to sell. This fantastic reasoning actually led to the purchase at $100 per share of common stocks earning $2.50 per share. The identical reasoning would support the purchase of these same shares at $200, at $1,000, or at any conceivable price.

An alluring corollary of this principle was that making money in the stock market was now the easiest thing in the world. It was only necessary to buy “good” stocks, regardless of price, and then to let nature take her upward course. The results of such a doctrine could not fail to be tragic. Countless people asked themselves, “Why work for a living when a fortune can be made in Wall Street without working?” The ensuing migration from business into the financial district resembled the famous gold rush to the Klondike, except that gold was brought to Wall Street instead of taken from it
To repeat: The results of such a doctrine could not fail to be tragic.

I’d be blunt or more direct, the obverse side of every mania is a crash.

Crashes signify as tragic outcomes.

US Treasury’s OFR Warns on US Stocks! BOE Sounds Financial Instability Alarm as Four Central Banks Cut Rates!

The reason I mentioned the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research has been because of their lengthy and detailed admonition on US equities which they describe as having been severely overvalued and overleveraged.

The US government’s OFR conclusion[11]
Markets can change rapidly and unpredictably. When these changes occur they are sharpest and most damaging when asset valuations are at extreme highs. High valuations have important implications for expected investment returns and, potentially, for financial stability.

Today’s market environment is different in many ways from the period preceding the Great Recession, because regulators and market participants have made adjustments to enhance financial stability since the financial crisis. In that time, stock returns have been exceptional and market volatility generally subdued. Today, many market strategists see the bull market extending throughout 2015.

However, quicksilver markets can turn from tranquil to turbulent in short order. It is worth noting that in 2006 volatility was low and companies were generating record profit margins, until the business cycle came to an abrupt halt due to events that many people had not anticipated. Although investor appetite for equities may remain robust in the near term, because of positive equity fundamentals and low yields in other asset classes, history shows high valuations carry inherent risk.

Based on the preliminary analysis presented here, the financial stability implications of a market correction could be moderate due to limited liquidity transformation in the equity market. However, potential financial stability risks arising from leverage, compressed pricing of risk, interconnectedness, and complexity deserve further attention and analysis.
Warnings from political authorities are back in the fad again.

This week, the Bank of England cautioned against financial stability risks[12] (bold mine)
Among officials’ top concerns is the risk that participants in financial markets are too sanguine about their ability to quickly sell assets if economic news sours, a fragility the BOE has been highlighting for some time.

This drying-up of market liquidity risks heightening volatility in financial markets and could undermine financial-sector stability, the panel said.
Aside from the OFR and BoE’s negative guidance, four more central banks have slashed interest rates last week, particularly Sweden, Pakistan, Hungary and Sierra Leone. Last week’s combined actions adds to 10 central bank rate cuts for the month and 28th for the year. Aggressive rate cuts represent crisis resolution measures being undertaken by global central banks. This tally board excludes other easing measures, like QE.

In the past, rate cuts had been used when the economic downturns become apparent. Today rate cuts are being applied preemptively. In other words, like bear markets, economic downturns or recessions are prohibited. Central banks will use all available tools to ward them off. The problem is that if their magic wand fails, and when the slump becomes apparent, then central banks would have exhausted their tools. 

28 rate cuts means many part of the world have been showing signs of emergent distress from which has prompted their respective central banks to act.

Nonetheless many stock markets have been at various record or milestone highs. Such euphoric mood runs in the opposite direction to the reactions of central banks with respect to their real economy. Record high stocks seem as in a state of intoxicated ignorant bliss.

Yet when they awake from their inebriation, a big hangover will befall on them.



[1] Philippine Stock Exchange PSE index posts 20th record close for 2015 March 26, 2015


[3] Mahar Mangahas Self-rated poverty proves its reliability March 14, 2015 Inquirer.net

[4] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Speech before the Euromoney Philippines Investment Forum, Sustaining the Economy's Growth Saga through The 3Ps of Policymaking: Proactive, Pre-emptive, and Prudent, bsp.gov.ph March 24, 2015



[7] Money and Banking Interview with Masaaki Shirakawa March 25, 2015



[10] Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, The New-Era Theory Chapter 27 THE THEORY OF COMMONSTOCK INVESTMENT Security Analysis Sixth Edition (p 359-360) Paulasset.com


Saturday, March 28, 2015

Ron Paul: Yemen Exploding: Is The Stage Set for the Big War?

I recently asked if the bombing by Saudi Arabian government on Yemen’s Houthi movement will have a ripple effect: 
Will this proxy war lead to a tit for tat with Iran? Will this foment an expanded theater of conflict between the US backed by her allies against the Russia-China alliance? (As side note: Russia and Iran recently signed a defense pact)
In his latest outlook, the great Ron Paul expands this view: (source: Ron Paul Institute/Lew Rockwell.com) [bold mine]
Rapid changes are occurring in Yemen. Ever since United States had to leave its military base there, other powers have been lining up to benefit from the chaos. It has been revealed that Saudi Arabia has commenced bombing targets in Yemen. Egypt has announced its support for the Saudi effort. I am quite confident that this support is in compliance with our instructions to our puppet leader now in charge in Egypt. The current president of Yemen, Hadi, a leader who took over after the Arab Spring revolution, has been removed from power. He is said to have escaped to Saudi Arabia, and those who are now in charge in Yemen will most likely kill him if he returns.

Yemen has been instrumental in the US effort to fight al-Qaeda in the region. Unsuccessfully, I might add. The Houthis who have deposed Hadi are said to get their support from Iran and are now likely the strongest political force in the country. But they will not have an easy time of it. Too much is at stake for the United States and Saudi Arabia. We don’t read much about the Saudi Air Force being involved in military conflict, but the seriousness of the situation has prompted them to do exactly that. There are also reports that 150,000 or more troops are massed near the borders of Yemen for a probable invasion. It is assumed that other Arab nations will be involved, along with Egypt. One report said that it appears the country is “sliding toward a civil war.” I would suggest that it’s past sliding toward the civil war, and, rather, is involved deeply in a civil war that is now spreading outside its own borders.

The neoconservatives, I am sure, will blame everything on Iran. And it’s likely Iran may have been involved in giving some type of support to the Shia that now are on the verge of taking over the country. But one must ask, “How does this compare to the support the United States has given to over 100 countries in recent years, with a major portion going to the Middle East?” There’s a big difference between a country becoming involved in a crisis next door and a country getting involved 6000 miles away.

It looks like the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, a military dictator who was deposed in the Arab Spring revolution, is now aligned with the Shia Houthis who are supported by Iran. This will not be tolerated by the United States, and we can expect the US to provide indirect military assistance to those who are prepared to invade Yemen and install a US friendly dictator.

Foreign forces’ bombs and occupation will serve to unify the citizens of Yemen despite their other differences. As a matter of fact, it’s been our presence in this country for more than a decade that has been an aggravating factor. The fact that al-Qaeda type rebel forces have done well in the various countries in recent years is because they gain support from the local people with the promise that the foreign invaders will be expelled. This certainly is true when it comes to the type of support that the people give, tacit or otherwise, to the very ruthless ISIS forces. It amazes me how these ragtag rebels can out-fight and outfox various countries whose forces are larger and better armed. The so-called rebels find that their promise to expel the invaders is a strong motivating factor to gain support for the military resistance. The catch-22 is that the more we or any other nation try to subdue a foreign country, the stronger the opposition becomes.

This new expansion of the war in Yemen is a bad sign. The situation could easily worsen, involve many countries, and last for a long time to come. The stage for the “Big War” may well be set and we will be hearing a lot more about Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula in the coming months. If this war gets out of hand, I would expect that the benefits of $45 per barrel of oil will soon end. There is no doubt in my mind that the American people — financially and for security reasons — would be better served if we just came home and avoided these nonsensical military interventions that are carried out in behalf of various special interests that control our foreign policy.


The proxy war map from the Zero Hedge

The Yemeni factions from Stratfor

Quote of the Day: Bubbles Don't Create Wealth

Bubbles do not produce new goods and services. They don’t create new wealth. For example, there was a copper bubble from 2009 to 2011. The price of copper more than tripled from $1.40 a pound to $4.60. Lots of people bet on it. Consider the fictional case of Joe, who bought $100,000 worth of copper. A few months later, he sold some. He took a profit, yet he still has $100,000 worth of metal. There is an old saying that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. And yet here’s Joe, who still has his money and he bought a motorcycle also. It’s not possible to consume without producing. Yet, while Joe’s copper wager produced nothing new, he consumed the bike. Logically, if Joe did not consume new production then he must be consuming old production. Joe consumed part of his savings. Joe doesn’t see the loss, because he is only thinking in dollars. Instead of looking at the trade in terms of paper, let’s focus on the loss of metal. Joe starts out with 15 tonnes of metal. He sells four to buy that new Harley, and has 11 left. Joe spent a big chunk of his copper, and now he has less. Most people don’t want to eat their capital. However, in a bubble they’re tricked. They think copper went up, but it’s just a mirage. In reality, the copper only went out—out the door. Now it’s gone. Speculating may seem similar to earning interest, but it achieves the opposite result. Interest creates new income by financing new production. Speculative gains come from paying out existing capital as income, and consuming it. We are all harmed by this destruction. Interest rate suppression undermines our civilization. It destroys the capital on which it depends.
This is from Keith Weiner president of the Gold Standard Institute USA and CEO of precious metals fund manager Monetary Metals published at the SNBCHF.com

Humor of the Day: Dilbert on the Employable Economist


(hat tip/source AEI's Mark Perry)

Friday, March 27, 2015

More Central Bank Panic: Bank Of England Warns of Elevated Risks to Financial Stability, Four More Central Banks Cut Rates Last Week!

Global central banks and governments remain in a state of panic. That’s if we account for their actions and statements over economic and financial conditions.

Last year, issuance of mostly ‘sanitized’ warnings had been the fad.

This year has been marked by policy actions, particularly a wave of easing measures of mostly interest rate cuts from different central banks.

Yet warnings has not diminished. 

Add to the alarm sirens recently rang by the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research, the Bank of England (BoE) has just jumped on the bandwagon of declaring heightened risks of financial instability.

The Bank of England said Thursday that risks to the stability of the U.K. financial system remain elevated, citing threats ranging from Greece’s debt troubles to diverging central-bank policies.

The BOE’s Financial Policy Committee, which safeguards the stability of the financial system, made no new policy recommendations at its quarterly meeting that ended March 24, the BOE said Thursday.

But the panel highlighted a slate of issues in the world economy and global financial system that it is monitoring closely.

Among officials’ top concerns is the risk that participants in financial markets are too sanguine about their ability to quickly sell assets if economic news sours, a fragility the BOE has been highlighting for some time.

This drying-up of market liquidity risks heightening volatility in financial markets and could undermine financial-sector stability, the panel said.

The committee instructed BOE staff and U.K. regulators to work together to get a better grasp of which markets may be especially vulnerable and to find out what strategies asset managers have in place to manage their liquidity needs. It asked officials to prepare an interim report on the risks surrounding market liquidity by June and a full report by September.

The panel also highlighted potential risks to the financial system from a slowdown in the Chinese economy and from the U.K.’s yawning current account deficit, which has widened to around 6% of annual gross domestic product.

And officials said they are monitoring lending standards closely, particularly in the leveraged loan market, where banks lend to companies before selling on the debt to investors.
The BoE seem to expect volatility ahead even as market participants haven’t taken various risks into considerations. 

Funny but, in the past government agents used to blind to such risks. It appears that risks have become so brazen that political agents can't ignore them anymore. Ironically, the same agents continue to apply the same measures which has spawned the current imbalances. 

Current policies as I have been saying represent: “Yes I recognize the problem of addiction but a withdrawal syndrome would even be more cataclysmic”.


So current warnings seem like escape clauses designed to exonerate them when risks transforms into reality.

Oh by the way, after my post on Russia and Serbia’s interest rate cuts, rate cuts by Sweden, Pakistan and Hungary adds to a total of 9 interest rate cut by global central banks this month and 27th for the year.

image
(table from CBrates.com)

If we add Sierre Leone which also cut rates last week, this makes for the 10th and 28th respectively.

Here is Central Bank News on Sierra Leone’s action: (bold mine)
Sierra Leone’s central bank cut its monetary policy rate (MPR) by 50 basis points to 9.50 percent to promote private sector credit growth in an effort to stimulate economic activity against a backdrop of a challenging environment created by the twin shocks of Ebola and the collapse of international commodity prices, particularly iron ore.
Measures against twin shocks and collapse. Nice.
Well again that’s only the interest rate segment. There are many more non interest rates easing actions that have not been included in the above tabulations.

Yet all these point to global central banks deploying crisis resolution measures on a massive scale even without a crisis yet.

So while stock markets have been euphoric, governments have been panicking. Two different agents moving in different directions. Obviously one will be wrong here.

Yet it’s a wonder what tools will be left for global central banks, since they have munificently used them, when the real thing appears.

Wow. US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research warns of US Stock Market’s Extreme Valuations, Overleverage and Rising Risks of Financial Instability

Step aside Ms. Yellen, the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research has explicitly warned of overvalued and overleveraged US stock markets!

In her recent report to the US Congress, Fed Chair Janet Yellen issued sanitized warnings in some areas of the Financial sector.

On the other hand, a recent report  from the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research admonishes on heightened risks of financial instability from current conditions in details!

From OFR’s Ted Berg’s QuickSilver Markets (bold mine footnotes omitted)
Some Valuation Metrics Are Nearing Extreme Highs

Today, equity valuations appear reasonable based on commonly used metrics such as the forward PE, price-to-book, and priceto-cash flow ratios. But these metrics do not tell the whole story. 

image

Take, for example, the simple PE ratio, which is a quick and easy way to evaluate stock prices (see Figure 2). It’s a convention that emerged mostly as a result of “tradition and convenience rather than logic,” according to Robert Shiller. Forward PE ratios are potentially misleading for several reasons. First, forward one-year earnings are derived from equity analyst projections, which tend to have an upward bias. During boom periods, analysts often project high levels of earnings far into the future. As a result, forward PE ratios often appear cheap. Second, one-year earnings are highly volatile and may not necessarily reflect a company’s sustainable earnings capacity. Third, profit margins typically revert toward a longer-term average over a business cycle. The risk of mean reversion is particularly relevant today, because profit margins are at historic highs and analysts forecast this trend to continue.

Other fundamental valuation metrics tell a different story than the forward PE. This brief focuses on a few — the CAPE ratio, the Q-ratio, and the Buffett Indicator — that are approaching two-standard deviation (two-sigma) thresholds.

Why is two-sigma relevant? Valuations approached or surpassed two-sigma in each major stock market bubble of the past century. And the bursting of asset bubbles has at times had important implications for financial stability. The two-sigma threshold is useful for identifying these extreme valuation outliers. Assuming a normal distribution in a time series, two-sigma events should occur once every 40-plus years; in equity markets, they occur more frequently due to fat-tail distributions.
In the following, I post the OFR’s comments on the CAPE ratio, the Q-ratio, and the Buffett Indicator with the exclusion of their methodology and their caveats.

image
CAPE Ratio.

The historical CAPE average based on a 133-year data series is approximately 17 times, and its two-standard-deviation upper band is 30 times. The highest market peaks (1929, 1999, and 2007) either surpassed or approached this two-sigma level (1999 exceeded four sigma). Each of these peaks was followed by a sharp decline in stock prices and adverse consequences for the real economy. At the end of 2014, the CAPE ratio (27 times) was in the 94th percentile of historical observations and was approaching its two-sigma threshold.
image
Q-Ratio.

The Q-ratio, defined here as the market value of nonfinancial corporate equities outstanding divided by net worth, suggests a similar message of equity valuations approaching critical levels (see Figure 4).7 Instead of using a traditional accounting-based (historical cost) measure of net worth, the Q-ratio incorporates market value and replacement cost estimates. The Q-ratio also includes a much broader universe of nonfinancial companies (private and public) than CAPE.
image
Buffett Indicator.

The ratio of corporate market value to gross national product (GNP) is at its highest level since 2000 and approaching the two-sigma threshold (see Figure 5). This indicator is informally referred to as the Buffett Indicator, because it is reportedly Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett’s preferred measure to assess overall market valuation. Historically, this indicator’s message is consistent with CAPE, particularly in identifying periods of extreme valuation before the Great Recession and the 1990s technology stock bubble.

image
The earnings mean reversion.
High valuations equals High risk and lower returns
Evaluating the Possibility of a Market Correction
image

History shows a clear relationship between the CAPE ratio and forward 10-year compounded annual real returns (see Figure 7).11 High valuations today imply lower future returns. However, none of these valuation metrics — the CAPE ratio, the Q-ratio, or the Buffett Indicator — predicts the timing of inflection points, and markets may remain undervalued or overvalued for very long periods. But we can use these metrics as barometers to gauge when valuations are reaching excessively high or low levels. The timing of market shocks is difficult, if not impossible, to identify in advance, let alone quantify — a shock, by definition, is unexpected. When assessing asset valuation it is important to make a distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk may be quantified and described in probabilistic terms, and analysts can factor this into their valuation models. However, uncertainty is hard to quantify because it refers to future events that cannot be fully understood or quantified. Today’s high stock valuations imply that investors underestimate the potential for uncertain events to occur.

Figure 8 shows the relationship between valuation and future returns more explicitly.
image
Historically, the highest returns follow periods of low valuations (CAPE < 10) and the lowest returns Figure 6. Earnings Mean Revert Over Time and Are Well Above Trend Figure 7. CAPE Is High Relative to Historical Levels 1 10 100 1881 1897 1914 1931 1947 1964 1981 1997 2014 S&P 500 real earnings vs. trend ($ per share, logarithmic scale) Twelve month Rolling 10-year Sources: Robert Shiller, OFR analysis Trendline (Rolling 10-year) Great Recession Great Depression OFR Brief Series March 2015 | Page 5 follow periods of high valuations (CAPE > 30). When setting expectations for future returns, CAPE appears most relevant at these extreme lows (expect above-average future returns) and highs (expect below-average future returns). In fact, real returns were negative, as shown in Figure 8, when CAPE exceeded the two-sigma threshold. Similar conclusions may be drawn from other metrics, such as the Q-ratio and Buffett Indicator, but the historical time series associated with them are shorter.

To be clear, extreme valuations (2-sigma) are only one characteristic of a potential bubble. Valuation in isolation is not necessarily sufficient to trigger a downturn, let alone pose risks to financial stability. Other factors are relevant for analyzing market cycles — most important, corporate earnings. 

image
Robust growth in corporate earnings is the primary driver behind the stock market’s gains over the past several years. But sales growth has been much more modest. Since the cyclical low in 2009, earnings have increased at a double-digit annual growth rate while sales have increased at a more modest mid single-digit rate. The higher trend growth in earnings versus sales is due to rising profit margins. S&P 500 profit margins reached a record 9.2 percent (trailing 4-quarter, GAAP) in the third quarter of 2014 (see Figure 9), well above the historical average of 6.3 percent. 

image
Broader measures of corporate profitability (before and after tax) tell a similar story (see Figure 10). The Bureau of Economic Analysis corporate profit data series covers approximately 9,000 companies, public and private, so it is a much broader measure than S&P 500 profits.

To date, record high margins are in part supported by favorable secular trends: a greater proportion of high margin sectors in the S&P 500 composite, lower corporate effective tax rates due to a higher mix of foreign profits, and productivity improvements such as automation and supply chain enhancements. The lower margin, capital-intensive sectors that dominated the market index in earlier decades have given way to more profitable and less capital-intensive sectors due to the computing revolution (early 1980s) and the gradual transition to a services-driven economy. Since the 1970s, lower margin, capital-intensive sectors (industrials, materials, and energy) have fallen from 39 to 22 percent of S&P 500 market capitalization, while higher margin sectors (technology, financials, and health care) have risen from 23 to 50 percent.

Other favorable cyclical factors have also helped to boost profitability, including low interest rates, low labor costs, cost-cutting initiatives, and positive operating leverage (high fixed costs relative to variable costs). However, many of these are not sustainable. Current historically low interest rates will eventually rise. Labor costs will increase as unemployment decreases, and cost-cutting initiatives, such as underinvestment in research and development and capital spending (key sources of future revenue growth), cannot continue indefinitely. Finally, positive operating leverage works in reverse when the sales cycle turns.

Of course, the current cycle could continue as long as revenue growth offsets these margin pressures.

Taking a longer-term view, beyond a single cycle, competitive market forces are another key factor that limits future margin expansion. Profitable industries eventually attract new capital and new competitors, ultimately reducing margins over time in mature industries. This is particularly true in a highly competitive global economy.

Mean reversion in margins has important implications for equity valuations. The current forward PE ratio appears reasonable only if record margins are sustained. During business cycle peaks, when margins are high, investors often fail to factor margin mean reversion into earnings estimates and then adjust forward PEs lower to compensate for this risk. 
I have always emphasized here that there are limits to anything including earnings growth. This is most especially relevant when zero bound rates induces a frontloading of growth through leverage.

image

Leverage.

Leverage can magnify the impact of asset price movements. Leverage achieved through stock margin borrowing played an important role in inflating stock prices in the 1929 stock market bubble and to a lesser extent in the late 1990s technology stock bubble. Margin debt, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, reached a record $500 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2014, representing just over 2 percent of overall market capitalization. Although this percentage is below the peak in 2008, it is higher than historical levels (see Figure 11). The percentage does not appear alarmingly high, but forced sales of equities by large leveraged investors at the margin could be a catalyst that sparks a larger selloff. Other forms of leverage, such as securities lending and synthetic leverage achieved through derivatives, may also present risks.

Another component of leverage in the system is the financing activities of corporations. Today, high profits have made corporate balance sheets generally quite healthy. As of the third quarter of 2014, U.S. nonfinancial corporations held a near-record $1.8 trillion in liquid assets (cash and financial assets readily convertible to cash). However, corporations also have racked up a record amount of debt since the last crisis. U.S. nonfinancial corporate debt outstanding has risen to $7.4 trillion, up from $5.7 trillion in 2006. Proceeds from debt offerings have largely been used for stock buybacks, dividend increases, and mergers and acquisitions. Although this financial engineering has contributed to higher stock prices in the short run, it detracts from opportunities to invest capital to support longer-term organic growth. Credit conditions remain favorable today because of the positive trend in earnings, but once the cycle turns from expansion to downturn, the buildup of past excesses will eventually lead to future defaults and losses. If interest rates suddenly increase, then financial engineering activities will subside, removing a key catalyst of higher stock prices
Zero bound rates signify as subsidy to interest rate sensitive sectors of the economy and markets, take these away, then there will be withdrawal syndroms.
Conclusion

Markets can change rapidly and unpredictably. When these changes occur they are sharpest and most damaging when asset valuations are at extreme highs. High valuations have important implications for expected investment returns and, potentially, for financial stability. 

Today’s market environment is different in many ways from the period preceding the Great Recession, because regulators and market participants have made adjustments to enhance financial stability since the financial crisis. In that time, stock returns have been exceptional and market volatility generally subdued. Today, many market strategists see the bull market extending throughout 2015.

However, quicksilver markets can turn from tranquil to turbulent in short order. It is worth noting that in 2006 volatility was low and companies were generating record profit margins, until the business cycle came to an abrupt halt due to events that many people had not anticipated. Although investor appetite for equities may remain robust in the near term, because of positive equity fundamentals and low yields in other asset classes, history shows high valuations carry inherent risk.

Based on the preliminary analysis presented here, the financial stability implications of a market correction could be moderate due to limited liquidity transformation in the equity market. However, potential financial stability risks arising from leverage, compressed pricing of risk, interconnectedness, and complexity deserve further attention and analysis.
You have been warned.

China Bubble: The Price-to-Whatever Ratio Stock Market

I have been repeatedly saying here that the Chinese government has purposely been inflating a stock market bubble as part of their public information campaign to project that economic conditions have been hunky dory, and that for skeptics, “there’s been nothing to see here, so move along”

image

The spurt  in Chinese stocks has initially been fueled by the PBOC’s targeted easing in June 2014 and subsequently the IPO price controls in August 2014 where the latter sparked a retail based mania.


image
Charts from FT Alphaville

The result of these accrued policy actions has been to spur a nearly vertical takeoff in her stock markets as retail participants and the shadow banking sector go on a wild party!

The Chinese government initially attempted to contain their self created mania by a crackdown on margin trades early this year. But with her stock markets responding violently, apparently the government seemed to have realized that  for political goals, accommodation of the bubble has been better than prevention.

You see the Chinese government has been reversing its previously announced market reform through political centralization. Such actions has been justified in the name of 'anti-corruption' which in reality has been about persecution of the opposition in order for the incumbent to consolidate power amidst growing economic and financial stress, as well as, intensifying strains in the domestic political environment.

Nevertheless, even mainstream media seems to have noticed now  of the fantastically absurd degree of proportions the bubble in China’s stock market has reached.

This “Time is Different” rational and the stampede into the stock market by retail investors.

From Bloomberg: (bold mine)
The 40-year-old strategist, who turned bullish just as the steepest four-month surge in seven years began last September, is among a growing number of forecasters who say traditional measures of value have little sway in a market where individual investors drive 80 percent of volumes and the biggest companies are run by the state. As long as China’s government maintains its support for the rally and keeps borrowing costs low, they say money will flow into shares and drive prices higher.

Investors in the $6.3 trillion market are showing few signs of fatigue after the Shanghai Composite Index jumped 77 percent over the past year, the biggest gain among major global equity gauges tracked by Bloomberg. The Shanghai measure rose 0.6 percent at the close on Thursday, versus a 0.9 percent drop in the MSCI Asia Pacific Index.

Mainland traders opened a record number of new accounts to buy yuan-denominated A shares in the week to March 20, while the value of equities purchased with borrowed money rose to an all-time high on Tuesday. The Shanghai Composite climbed for 10 consecutive days through March 24, the longest winning streak since 1992, as daily turnover on mainland bourses surged to an unprecedented 1.4 trillion yuan ($225 billion).
The Chinese government sees rising stocks as alternative instruments to credit…
China needs a strong stock market to make it easier for companies to lure equity financing and invest in projects that drive economic expansion, said Kelvin Wong, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Bank Julius Baer & Co., which has about $304 billion under management. The country has relied on credit growth to spur the economy for the past five years, sending total debt to more than twice the nation’s gross domestic product.
So inflate a bubble to generate funds for corporate operations, and most importantly, for debt servicing. This is what the late economist Hyman Minsky calls as Ponzi finance. And considering that China's debt may have already reached its peak levels thus the next step has been to ignite asset inflation via stock market boom.
 
Chinese stocks has reached outrageous valuations…
The Shanghai Composite’s median price-to-earnings ratio, which is less influenced by the nation’s biggest banks than a market-capitalization weighted average, has climbed to 44. That level has been breached just twice during the past decade, in late stages of rallies in 2007, when it climbed as high as 66, and early 2010, when the peak was 47. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has a median ratio of about 20, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The Shanghai index’s earnings yield, or profits as a percentage of the price, has shrunk to 5.6 percent, the lowest since May 2011 versus the nation’s highest-rated 10-year corporate debt, which has a 4.8 percent yield. Chinese companies with dual listings are 34 percent more expensive on the mainland versus Hong Kong, the widest gap since October 2011, according to the Hang Seng China AH Premium Index.
The article ends with a quote from John Maynard Keynes excerpted by a bullish analyst
There is nothing so disastrous as the pursuit of a rational investment policy in an irrational world.
It's all about a tsunami of liquidity and excessive leverage says the BNP

The Zero Hedge quotes BNP (italics, bold and underline original)
Against all odds, the best performing asset class on the planet over the last nine months or so has been Chinese equities…

...it’s not the economy (as we’ve been saying for months)...

What underlies these extraordinary gains? It is certainly not economic fundamentals. Led by the accelerating real estate slump (China: It’s Only Just Begun), China’s GDP growth has steadily slowed with reported 2014 GDP growth of 7.4% the slowest in almost twenty years. A range of ‘hard’ economic indicators such as electricity production and rail cargo volumes suggest even slower growth. Our preferred ‘real, real’ GDP estimate flags that output growth could have been as low as c.4½% in 2014 (China: Fit as a Fiddle). While the usual data fog around the Lunar New Year partially clouds analysis, high frequency indicators that generate early estimates of GDP growth suggest that the growth has continued to slide in 2015Q1…

...it must be liquidity….

By definition therefore equities’ stellar performance has been a function of liquidity driven multiple expansion. The P/E ratios for the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets have roughly doubled since August to c.19x and c.44x respectively. While still a long way short of the incredible highs of 70-80x reached during the 2006-2007 bubble, multiples are now rapidly approaching their post-GFC highs. One obvious source of fresh liquidity which could have powered equities’ bull-run is from the long-delayed introduction of the Hong Kong Shanghai ‘stock connect’ last November. The scheme, formerly known as ‘the through train’, allows two trading between the Shanghai A-share market and the Hang Seng. Two-way flows however have been relatively meagre. An initial aggregate quota of RMB300bn was set for northbound flows into Shanghai. So far only about a cumulative RMB125bn has flowed north, leaving RMB175bn of the aggregate quota unfilled. And northbound buy orders have in turn typically only accounted for around ¾% of the Shanghai market’s daily turnover…

...and it comes from a predictable place, leverage…

Far from a surge in external liquidity, an increasingly self-feeding domestic frenzy fuelled by leverage appears to be the key driver….Margin purchases have been running well ahead of redemptions ensuring that the outstanding stock of margin debt has ballooned by over RMB1 trillion since August; equivalent to more than 1% of GDP…

...and castles built on quicksand (i.e. margin debt) will likely collapse…

Margin purchases are now accounting for almost 20% of equities daily turnover which itself has soared to wholly unprecedented levels in another sign of self-feeding speculative frenzy. What happens next is clearly an ‘unknown-unknown’. By definition detached from fundamentals, speculative bubbles are inherently re-enforcing in the short-term and frequently last longer than expected. The longer they continue, however, the larger the eventual bursting. 

clip_image001

Well such ridiculous valuation levels hasn’t been isolated to Chinese stocks, the Philippines has been plagued by almost the same degree of outlandishness. For instance, the Philippine property index has PER valuations of 35.7 based on LTM 3Q 2014 reported earnings based on yesterday prices. 

So the same Price-to-Whatever Ratio afflicts the Philippines.

While bullish analysts may quote that “there is nothing so disastrous as the pursuit of a rational investment policy in an irrational world” in order to justify the utter disregard of risks to chase momentum or prices, unfortunately listening to such advise comes with a Damocles sword. 

That's because the same ‘illustrious’ economist also warned,
A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.
So while 'the market can remain irrational longer than one can remain solvent', such that bullish analysts will line up their pockets with money from confirming on the biases of the hapless and gullible lemmings, when the disaster comes, the same people will hide under the skirt of crowd and get themselves absolved by claiming ignorance. How nice.