Must read quality items for the weekend....
http://www.prudentbear.com/2014/01/historic-year-2014-thesis.html
http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-a-failed-state-lies-before-us/
http://www.prudentbear.com/2014/01/historic-year-2014-thesis.html
Historic Year 2014 Thesis
January 17, 2014
EM trades poorly and more China Credit developments, while the Fed hawks build their case.
I’m proceeding with the view that 2014 is poised to be a key year in economic/financial history. Actually, I suspect future historians will look back at 2013 as a critical juncture. Last year saw the Fed and Bank of Japan combine for almost $2 TN of QE. Of significant consequence, an over-liquefied and increasingly speculative marketplace shifted its sights to stocks. “Money” flooded into U.S. and (predominantly “developed”) global equities, working at the same time to spur flows and excess in corporate debt. Speculative dynamics took firm hold, with potentially profound ramifications for global financial flows and stability. Real economies became an only bigger side show. Will central banks have the resolve to pull back?
From a flow of funds basis, the Fed fatefully decided to stick with its $85bn monthly liquidity injection, in the face of overheated markets. Across the globe, Chinese officials also fatefully granted the “terminal phase” of their historic Credit Bubble an extended lease on life. Significant cracks appeared in the China/EM Bubbles, Bubbles that have been a primary “beneficiary” throughout more than five years of unprecedented global monetary inflation.
Massive ongoing global liquidity injections coupled with historic Chinese Credit growth for the most part held the unwind of these Bubbles at bay in 2013. While it’s of course early, 2014 market trends thus far are to sell EM currencies, to sell the so called “commodity-currencies” and buy global bonds that might be viewed as safe havens in a backdrop of mounting disinflationary risks.
My “Historic Year 2014 Thesis” rests significantly on the premise that inflated and destabilized global risk markets (particularly the EM “periphery”) have become highly vulnerable to waning Federal Reserve liquidity injections and an impending Credit downturn in China. As such, considerable ongoing attention will be directed to the issues of Fed policymaking and Chinese Credit.
On the China Credit front, there were further indications of trouble brewing. December Credit data were released (see “China Credit Bubble Watch”) showing, on the one hand, a meaningful slowdown in bank lending and, on the other, continued rampant growth of “shadow banking” finance. Short-term market yields spiked this week ahead of the Chinese New Year holidays, while concerns arose of a potential default in a prominent “shadow bank” investment vehicle.
January 17 – Bloomberg: “Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. is rejecting calls to bail out a troubled 3 billion- yuan ($495 million) trust product, a bank official with knowledge of the matter said, stoking concern that the nation’s first default on such high-yield investments may be looming. ICBC, which distributed the product sold by a trust company to raise funds for Shanxi Zhenfu Energy Group, won’t assume primary responsibility after the coal miner collapsed, according to the executive… China’s largest bank may be forced to repay investors, most of whom were Beijing-based ICBC’s own private banking clients, Guangzhou Daily reported… A default on the investment product, which comes due Jan. 31, may shake investors’ faith in the implicit guarantees offered by trust companies to lure funds from wealthy people. Assets managed by China’s 67 trusts soared 60% to $1.67 trillion in the 12 months ended September… ‘Nobody wants this default to become a trigger for a financial crisis,’ Xue Huiru… analyst at SWS Research Co., said… ‘Breaking the implicit guarantee may help the long-term development of China’s financial system, but the short-term pain would be too much for the economy to take.’”
Here at home, it was another intriguing week of comments, discussions and speeches from key Federal Reserve officials. The Statesman, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser, again made his case for fundamental changes in Fed policymaking with his “Perspectives on the Economy and Monetary Policy.” Richard Fisher, Statesman and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, made his compelling case to wind down QE with his “Beer Goggles, Monetary Camels, the Eye of the Needle and the First Law of Holes.” The so-called “hawks” are actively building a very strong case. The academic “doves” are fated to profess “deflation!”
On some key issues, Fisher and Plosser seem to be reading from the same script. The Fed needs to get out of the business of printing "money" and distorting markets. Fisher went out of his way to signal that a market correction would not dissuade him from voting to quickly wind down QE operations. Plosser again argued persuasively that the Fed has little power over structural economic issues, including the declining labor participation rate. And he “wants more commitment the Fed will truly end bond buying,” echoing Fisher’s concern that the Fed has been too quick to reverse course at the first sign of market angst.
The monetary policy debate is commonly viewed from the perspective of the “doves” versus the “hawks.” Today, a more fruitful vantage point might be between the academics and those with a broader real world and market focus. The FOMC has been called “the most academic in history.” And especially when it comes to QE and other experimental policies, the FOMC has relied heavily on abstract academic models (note Williams’ response to the Hilsenrath question below).
This week saw the launch of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Brookings Institute), with interesting discussions that touched upon some of the most important financial issues of our day. I have included excerpts below.
It’s worth noting the widely divergent view (from the academics) of Dallas’ Fisher, whose illustrious career includes years at Wall Street firm Brown Brothers, Harriman, along with stints at the U.S. Department of Treasury. I’ll assume it’s a first for a Fed official to use the phrase “beer goggles.” I’ll include a brief excerpt but encourage all to read his well-crafted and thought-provoking speech in its entirety.
Fisher: “For those of you unfamiliar with the term ‘beer goggles,’ the Urban Dictionary defines it as ‘the effect that alcohol … has in rendering a person who one would ordinarily regard as unattractive as … alluring.’ …Things often look better when one is under the influence of free-flowing liquidity. This is one reason why William McChesney Martin, the longest-serving Fed chairman in our institution’s 100-year history, famously said that the Fed’s job is to take away the punchbowl just as the party gets going...
When money available to investors is close to free and is widely available, and there is a presumption that the central bank will keep it that way indefinitely, discount rates applied to assessing the value of future cash flows shift downward, making for lower hurdle rates for valuations. A bull market for stocks and other claims on tradable companies ensues; the financial world looks rather comely.
Market operators donning beer goggles and even some sober economists consider analysts like [Peter] Boockvar party poopers. But I have found myself making arguments similar to his and to those of other skeptics at recent FOMC meetings, pointing to some developments that signal we have made for an intoxicating brew as we have continued pouring liquidity down the economy’s throat.
Among them: Share buybacks financed by debt issuance that after tax treatment and inflation incur minimal, and in some cases negative, cost; this has a most pleasant effect on earnings per share apart from top-line revenue growth. Dividend payouts financed by cheap debt that bolster share prices. The ‘bull/bear spread’ for equities now being higher than in October 2007. Stock market metrics such as price-to-sales ratios and market capitalization as a percentage of gross domestic product at eye-popping levels not seen since the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. Margin debt that is pushing up against all-time records.
In the bond market, investment-grade yield spreads over ‘risk free’ government bonds becoming abnormally tight. 'Covenant lite’ lending becoming robust and the spread between CCC credit and investment-grade credit or the risk-free rate historically narrow. I will note here that I am all for helping businesses get back on their feet so that they can expand employment and America’s prosperity: This is the root desire of the FOMC. But I worry when ‘junk’ companies that should borrow at a premium reflecting their risk of failure are able to borrow (or have their shares priced) at rates that defy the odds of that risk. I may be too close to this given my background. From 1989 through 1997, I was managing partner of a fund that bought distressed debt… Today, I would have to hire Sherlock Holmes to find a single distressed company priced attractively enough to buy.”
Sherlock Holmes would be hard-pressed these days to locate attractively-prices stocks, bonds, upper-end homes, commercial real estate, farm properties, art and collectables, bitcoins, etc. The Fed’s move to zero short-term rates and a $4 TN balance sheet has fueled virtually systemic inflation of asset prices coupled with a general collapse in risk premiums.
Below I’ve also included noteworthy comments from two leading Federal Reserve academics, the retiring chairman and Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams. Both remain staunch supporters of QE, keen to highlight the benefits while downplaying associated risks. It is worth noting that Williams, residing in the epicenter of another tech and housing boom in San Francisco, believes “our financial system is still in a risk-averse mode.” And is it even credible to state "I don’t think that the low interest rates were an important contributor to the housing bubble"?
I’m most fascinated by Bernanke’s discussion of QE risks. While downplaying the risk of inflation, he does at least recognize the potential risk Fed policy is having on financial stability. Bernanke: “But at this point we don’t think that – and I think I can speak for my colleagues on this – we don’t think that financial stability concerns should at this point detract from the need for monetary policy accommodation which we are continuing to provide.” Fisher, Plosser, Esther George, Jeffrey Lacker and others might today take exception with the view that QE benefits still outweigh the risks.
Away from the Fed, I’d like to commend the ongoing efforts of Harvard’s Martin Feldstein in the monetary policy debate. From a panel discussion this week at the Hutchins Center for Fiscal and Monetary Policy:
Feldstein: “John (Williams) reminds us that the standard textbook theory implies that LSAPs (large-scale asset purchases/QE) cannot affect asset prices and interest rates. We now know that that theory is wrong. The Fed’s massive purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities drove the yield on 10-year Treasuries to just 1.7% in May of 2013. The announced plan to end the purchase program was enough to drive that rate back to 3%... But missing in all of this (Williams and others’) analysis is a balancing of the potential output gains of LSAPs against the risks generated by sustaining abnormally low long-term interest rates. Those risks include, one, potential price bubbles in equities, land and other assets. Two, portfolio risks as investors reach for yield with junk bonds, emerging market debt, uncovered options and the like. Three, creditor risks as lenders make loans to less qualified borrowers, ‘covenant-lite’ loans and bonds, long-term mortgages at insufficient interest rates and so on. And four, long-term inflation risks as commercial banks acquire a large portfolio of low-yielding assets at the Federal Reserve that could be converted to commercial loans. In its conclusion, in his paper and in his remarks, John (Williams) asks whether LSAPs should be a standard tool when short rates are at the zero lower bound. I think it is at best too soon to tell. We will know more when we see the outcome of the risks that the LSAP’s created.”
Things are falling into place for a momentous policy showdown between the “hawks” and the “doves.” This debate pits the complacent academics, committed to their models and ideology, versus the more reality-based officials that have seen enough to appreciate that the Fed’s untested monetary experiment is increasingly inflating and distorting securities and asset markets.
Interestingly, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde, in a speech this week in Washington, strongly warned of the global risk of deflation: “If inflation is the genie, then deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively.” “With inflation running below many central banks’ targets, we see rising risks of deflation, which could prove disastrous for the recovery.” She clearly decided to interject herself into the unfolding Federal Reserve policy debate.
Let’s briefly return to the “Historic Year 2014 Thesis.” Policymakers do indeed already confront a historic dilemma. Increasingly, there are downward pressures on some global prices. There is growing excess capacity to produce too many things. Moreover, unprecedented Credit Bubbles in China, Brazil, India, Turkey and EM generally are today at heightened – perhaps acute - risk. These (“periphery”) Credit systems and economies were the “global growth locomotives” at the heart of the “global reflation trade.” Meanwhile, the Trillions of “money” unleashed by global central bankers gravitate to inflating asset market Bubbles, now predominantly in the “developed” (“core”) economies. Even within EM, Chinese Credit system stress and attendant higher market yields provide a powerful magnet attracting enormous financial inflows, as destabilizing outbound flows appear likely for other key EM systems.
Notably, January is turning out to be a colossal month of debt issuance, with potentially record volumes of dollar-denominated international debt issuance. It is incredible to speak of “deflation” in the face of such liquidity abundance, generally ultra-loose (“still dancing”) financial conditions and myriad indications of excessive risk-taking. Is more “money” the solution?
And the unfolding policy dilemma seems to come into clearer focus by the week: Do central banks, in their incessant war against their perceived villain, the “deflation ogre”, continue to flood global financial markets with destabilizing liquidity? Or will they begin to take into account the true enemy of financial stability: increasingly conspicuous financial Bubbles (at the “core”)?
Curiously, Bernanke and the academics avoid discussing the key risk associated with QE – the risk that has remained at the forefront of my analysis for several years now: once aggressive monetary inflation has been commenced it becomes extremely difficult to stop. Will the Fed hawks succeed in trying to rein in the Fed’s runaway balance sheet growth? Or, as exuberant market participants assume, will central banks remain the prisoners of asset market and speculative Bubble fragilities?
Q&A from a panel discussion at the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Brookings Institute, January 16, 2014:
David Wessel: “What about the risk that what you’re doing now is sowing the seeds of the next bout of financial instability?”
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams: “In terms of these issues of greater risks?”
Wessel: “Yes, how much do you worry that what you’re doing now, because we’re clearly missing both the inflation and unemployment target that you’ve set – the mandate, risk is creating the financial instability that will give Janet Yellen a lot of headaches in her job?”
Williams: “We take this very seriously. Obviously, we’ve all learned the lessons of the past decade or so. We follow very carefully what’s happening in financial markets, both in the banking part of the financial system but most importantly…this is a capital markets-based economy. So it’s just not the banks. You have to think about the shadow banking system and the rest of the system. So we’re clearly studying this. We clearly have really increased our monitoring and our analysis around this. My argument would be the first line of defense regarding issues of growing financial risk is really around micro and macro prudential policies – both by having the right policies and implementing them… I think we’ve made incredibly important strides in terms of financial stability, in terms of the stress test, in terms of our implementation of Dodd Frank. So to my mind, we are on the job on that. We are studying that carefully. And we are balancing the costs and benefits around our QE policies. I view very strongly that the macroeconomic benefits far outweigh some of these issues right now. Risk aversion today in the markets generally – you can find specific examples, farm land prices or leveraged loan prices – but broadly defined, our financial system is still in a risk-averse mode and not a risk-loving mode. So I think these concerns today are still perhaps not as prevalent as some people think.”
Jon Hilsenrath, Wall Street Journal: “John (Williams) a question for you. The Fed employed a low for longer approach after the tech bubble burst. Several years later we had a housing bubble. I wanted to ask you, what is the risk, specifically, a low for longer policy could contribute to bubbles? Does it disturb you at all that it doesn’t seem that the (Michael) Woodford models, upon which low for longer is based, take much account for the creation of bubbles. And how should this factor into the Fed’s thinking now as it employs a low for longer policy again?”
Williams: “I agree with Marty (Feldstein) on this point. Our models that we use do not take seriously that there’s a complex financial system out there that can have endogenous changes in leverage, in risk-taking. And I would also add to that our models tend to assume highly rational agents who have a full understanding of things. So bubbles never occur. So I do think in our thinking about these issues we have to broaden our minds to more of an approach that allows for the fact that these things can happen; that asset markets can get away from fundamentals for significant periods of time. Financial markets can get disrupted. My answer to your question is I don’t think that the low interest rates were an important contributor to the housing bubble. I think fundamentally flawed aspects of our regulatory environment were the key part of that story about the housing bubble. I think Dodd Frank and Basel III and a lot of things we’re doing are addressing those concerns in a very important way. That said, I do think that we have to have open minds about understanding how low interest rates for a long period of time do affect risk-taking, leverage and asset prices, as Marty (Feldstein) said. “
Brookings Institution: January 16, 2014, Liaquat Ahamed: “We know what the benefits [from LSAPs/QE] are, because they’re lower long-term rates, lower mortgage rates. So what are the costs that you most worry about?’
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke: “Well I think that some of the costs that people talk about are not really costs, and I’ll mention a couple. One cost that gets talked about is, ‘is this going to be inflationary?’ While of course it’s always possible for the Fed to raise rates too late or too early and so on, I think we have plenty of tools now at this point – we’ve developed all the tools we need to manage interest rates – to tighten monetary policy even if the balance sheet stays where it is or gets bigger. And because we can do that, that means that we can run monetary policy in a normal way, and avoid any risk of any undue inflation or other such problems. So I don’t think that’s a concern and those who have been saying for the last five years that we’re just on the brink of hyperinflation – I think I would just point them to this morning’s CPI number and suggest that inflation is just not really a significant risk of this policy.
Another concern that people have talked about is the idea that the Fed might take capital losses, which of course is not impossible. But I would say that from a social point of view we have already not only helped the economy but we’ve actually helped the fiscal situation quite significantly with the hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve remitted to the Treasury – and that doesn’t even take into account the benefits for the public fiscal of a stronger economy, more tax revenues and the like. So that risk is again not a true social economic risk. It is, if anything perhaps, a public relations risk for the Fed. But it’s not a serious economic risk.
The main risk that my colleagues have pointed to is various aspects of financial stability – or potential for financial instability. There’s always some concern, really, for any kind of easy monetary policy, that after a period of time maybe some reaching for yield or some mis-valuation of assets. And given what happened of course just five years ago, we’re extraordinarily sensitive to that risk. Now, of course, that’s really for different kinds of monetary policy. QE in addition works on term premiums to a significant extent and we simply have less knowledge and information as to how term premiums are determined, and therefore there’s an additional concern, volatility associated with the management of QE. So there are certainly some risks there.
Our strategy, though, has been to not distort monetary policy in order to address those risks directly. Indeed, insufficient monetary policy accommodation, if it leads to a weaker economy and bad credit outcomes, etc., it’s also a financial stability risk. So our basic approach has been, at least for the first, second and third lines of defense, to rely on supervision, regulation, monitoring, macro-prudential policies – that whole set of tools that we have and are developing to try to avoid potential problems. We also look very carefully at the implications of any potential kind of financial imbalance. For example, is that asset class heavily levered – is it supported heavily by leverage, which would in turn mean that a sharp drop in that valuation would lead to other types of problems. Those are the kinds of things we look at, and we greatly increased our ability to monitor and analyze those types of situations. So our goal is to address financial instability concerns primarily, at least in the first instance, through supervision, regulation and other microeconomic types of tools. But it is something that I think of the various costs that have been ascribed to QE, I think it’s the only one that I find personally credible, frankly. And it’s the one we have spent the most time thinking about and trying to make sure that we can address it the best we can.”
Ahamed: “The bottom line, for the moment you’re not worried about too much froth in financial markets?”
Bernanke: “Well, it’s always of course bad luck to make any forecast about any particular market. But the markets currently seem to be broadly within the metrics of market valuation– valuation seems to be broadly within historical ranges. The financial system is strong. The key financial institutions are well-capitalized. So we are watching this very vigilantly. We’ve developed tremendous additional capacity for doing that. But at this point we don’t think that – and I think I can speak for my colleagues on this – we don’t think that financial stability concerns should at this point detract from the need for monetary policy accommodation which we are continuing to provide.”
I’m proceeding with the view that 2014 is poised to be a key year in economic/financial history. Actually, I suspect future historians will look back at 2013 as a critical juncture. Last year saw the Fed and Bank of Japan combine for almost $2 TN of QE. Of significant consequence, an over-liquefied and increasingly speculative marketplace shifted its sights to stocks. “Money” flooded into U.S. and (predominantly “developed”) global equities, working at the same time to spur flows and excess in corporate debt. Speculative dynamics took firm hold, with potentially profound ramifications for global financial flows and stability. Real economies became an only bigger side show. Will central banks have the resolve to pull back?
From a flow of funds basis, the Fed fatefully decided to stick with its $85bn monthly liquidity injection, in the face of overheated markets. Across the globe, Chinese officials also fatefully granted the “terminal phase” of their historic Credit Bubble an extended lease on life. Significant cracks appeared in the China/EM Bubbles, Bubbles that have been a primary “beneficiary” throughout more than five years of unprecedented global monetary inflation.
Massive ongoing global liquidity injections coupled with historic Chinese Credit growth for the most part held the unwind of these Bubbles at bay in 2013. While it’s of course early, 2014 market trends thus far are to sell EM currencies, to sell the so called “commodity-currencies” and buy global bonds that might be viewed as safe havens in a backdrop of mounting disinflationary risks.
My “Historic Year 2014 Thesis” rests significantly on the premise that inflated and destabilized global risk markets (particularly the EM “periphery”) have become highly vulnerable to waning Federal Reserve liquidity injections and an impending Credit downturn in China. As such, considerable ongoing attention will be directed to the issues of Fed policymaking and Chinese Credit.
On the China Credit front, there were further indications of trouble brewing. December Credit data were released (see “China Credit Bubble Watch”) showing, on the one hand, a meaningful slowdown in bank lending and, on the other, continued rampant growth of “shadow banking” finance. Short-term market yields spiked this week ahead of the Chinese New Year holidays, while concerns arose of a potential default in a prominent “shadow bank” investment vehicle.
January 17 – Bloomberg: “Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. is rejecting calls to bail out a troubled 3 billion- yuan ($495 million) trust product, a bank official with knowledge of the matter said, stoking concern that the nation’s first default on such high-yield investments may be looming. ICBC, which distributed the product sold by a trust company to raise funds for Shanxi Zhenfu Energy Group, won’t assume primary responsibility after the coal miner collapsed, according to the executive… China’s largest bank may be forced to repay investors, most of whom were Beijing-based ICBC’s own private banking clients, Guangzhou Daily reported… A default on the investment product, which comes due Jan. 31, may shake investors’ faith in the implicit guarantees offered by trust companies to lure funds from wealthy people. Assets managed by China’s 67 trusts soared 60% to $1.67 trillion in the 12 months ended September… ‘Nobody wants this default to become a trigger for a financial crisis,’ Xue Huiru… analyst at SWS Research Co., said… ‘Breaking the implicit guarantee may help the long-term development of China’s financial system, but the short-term pain would be too much for the economy to take.’”
Here at home, it was another intriguing week of comments, discussions and speeches from key Federal Reserve officials. The Statesman, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser, again made his case for fundamental changes in Fed policymaking with his “Perspectives on the Economy and Monetary Policy.” Richard Fisher, Statesman and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, made his compelling case to wind down QE with his “Beer Goggles, Monetary Camels, the Eye of the Needle and the First Law of Holes.” The so-called “hawks” are actively building a very strong case. The academic “doves” are fated to profess “deflation!”
On some key issues, Fisher and Plosser seem to be reading from the same script. The Fed needs to get out of the business of printing "money" and distorting markets. Fisher went out of his way to signal that a market correction would not dissuade him from voting to quickly wind down QE operations. Plosser again argued persuasively that the Fed has little power over structural economic issues, including the declining labor participation rate. And he “wants more commitment the Fed will truly end bond buying,” echoing Fisher’s concern that the Fed has been too quick to reverse course at the first sign of market angst.
The monetary policy debate is commonly viewed from the perspective of the “doves” versus the “hawks.” Today, a more fruitful vantage point might be between the academics and those with a broader real world and market focus. The FOMC has been called “the most academic in history.” And especially when it comes to QE and other experimental policies, the FOMC has relied heavily on abstract academic models (note Williams’ response to the Hilsenrath question below).
This week saw the launch of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Brookings Institute), with interesting discussions that touched upon some of the most important financial issues of our day. I have included excerpts below.
It’s worth noting the widely divergent view (from the academics) of Dallas’ Fisher, whose illustrious career includes years at Wall Street firm Brown Brothers, Harriman, along with stints at the U.S. Department of Treasury. I’ll assume it’s a first for a Fed official to use the phrase “beer goggles.” I’ll include a brief excerpt but encourage all to read his well-crafted and thought-provoking speech in its entirety.
Fisher: “For those of you unfamiliar with the term ‘beer goggles,’ the Urban Dictionary defines it as ‘the effect that alcohol … has in rendering a person who one would ordinarily regard as unattractive as … alluring.’ …Things often look better when one is under the influence of free-flowing liquidity. This is one reason why William McChesney Martin, the longest-serving Fed chairman in our institution’s 100-year history, famously said that the Fed’s job is to take away the punchbowl just as the party gets going...
When money available to investors is close to free and is widely available, and there is a presumption that the central bank will keep it that way indefinitely, discount rates applied to assessing the value of future cash flows shift downward, making for lower hurdle rates for valuations. A bull market for stocks and other claims on tradable companies ensues; the financial world looks rather comely.
Market operators donning beer goggles and even some sober economists consider analysts like [Peter] Boockvar party poopers. But I have found myself making arguments similar to his and to those of other skeptics at recent FOMC meetings, pointing to some developments that signal we have made for an intoxicating brew as we have continued pouring liquidity down the economy’s throat.
Among them: Share buybacks financed by debt issuance that after tax treatment and inflation incur minimal, and in some cases negative, cost; this has a most pleasant effect on earnings per share apart from top-line revenue growth. Dividend payouts financed by cheap debt that bolster share prices. The ‘bull/bear spread’ for equities now being higher than in October 2007. Stock market metrics such as price-to-sales ratios and market capitalization as a percentage of gross domestic product at eye-popping levels not seen since the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. Margin debt that is pushing up against all-time records.
In the bond market, investment-grade yield spreads over ‘risk free’ government bonds becoming abnormally tight. 'Covenant lite’ lending becoming robust and the spread between CCC credit and investment-grade credit or the risk-free rate historically narrow. I will note here that I am all for helping businesses get back on their feet so that they can expand employment and America’s prosperity: This is the root desire of the FOMC. But I worry when ‘junk’ companies that should borrow at a premium reflecting their risk of failure are able to borrow (or have their shares priced) at rates that defy the odds of that risk. I may be too close to this given my background. From 1989 through 1997, I was managing partner of a fund that bought distressed debt… Today, I would have to hire Sherlock Holmes to find a single distressed company priced attractively enough to buy.”
Sherlock Holmes would be hard-pressed these days to locate attractively-prices stocks, bonds, upper-end homes, commercial real estate, farm properties, art and collectables, bitcoins, etc. The Fed’s move to zero short-term rates and a $4 TN balance sheet has fueled virtually systemic inflation of asset prices coupled with a general collapse in risk premiums.
Below I’ve also included noteworthy comments from two leading Federal Reserve academics, the retiring chairman and Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams. Both remain staunch supporters of QE, keen to highlight the benefits while downplaying associated risks. It is worth noting that Williams, residing in the epicenter of another tech and housing boom in San Francisco, believes “our financial system is still in a risk-averse mode.” And is it even credible to state "I don’t think that the low interest rates were an important contributor to the housing bubble"?
I’m most fascinated by Bernanke’s discussion of QE risks. While downplaying the risk of inflation, he does at least recognize the potential risk Fed policy is having on financial stability. Bernanke: “But at this point we don’t think that – and I think I can speak for my colleagues on this – we don’t think that financial stability concerns should at this point detract from the need for monetary policy accommodation which we are continuing to provide.” Fisher, Plosser, Esther George, Jeffrey Lacker and others might today take exception with the view that QE benefits still outweigh the risks.
Away from the Fed, I’d like to commend the ongoing efforts of Harvard’s Martin Feldstein in the monetary policy debate. From a panel discussion this week at the Hutchins Center for Fiscal and Monetary Policy:
Feldstein: “John (Williams) reminds us that the standard textbook theory implies that LSAPs (large-scale asset purchases/QE) cannot affect asset prices and interest rates. We now know that that theory is wrong. The Fed’s massive purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities drove the yield on 10-year Treasuries to just 1.7% in May of 2013. The announced plan to end the purchase program was enough to drive that rate back to 3%... But missing in all of this (Williams and others’) analysis is a balancing of the potential output gains of LSAPs against the risks generated by sustaining abnormally low long-term interest rates. Those risks include, one, potential price bubbles in equities, land and other assets. Two, portfolio risks as investors reach for yield with junk bonds, emerging market debt, uncovered options and the like. Three, creditor risks as lenders make loans to less qualified borrowers, ‘covenant-lite’ loans and bonds, long-term mortgages at insufficient interest rates and so on. And four, long-term inflation risks as commercial banks acquire a large portfolio of low-yielding assets at the Federal Reserve that could be converted to commercial loans. In its conclusion, in his paper and in his remarks, John (Williams) asks whether LSAPs should be a standard tool when short rates are at the zero lower bound. I think it is at best too soon to tell. We will know more when we see the outcome of the risks that the LSAP’s created.”
Things are falling into place for a momentous policy showdown between the “hawks” and the “doves.” This debate pits the complacent academics, committed to their models and ideology, versus the more reality-based officials that have seen enough to appreciate that the Fed’s untested monetary experiment is increasingly inflating and distorting securities and asset markets.
Interestingly, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde, in a speech this week in Washington, strongly warned of the global risk of deflation: “If inflation is the genie, then deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively.” “With inflation running below many central banks’ targets, we see rising risks of deflation, which could prove disastrous for the recovery.” She clearly decided to interject herself into the unfolding Federal Reserve policy debate.
Let’s briefly return to the “Historic Year 2014 Thesis.” Policymakers do indeed already confront a historic dilemma. Increasingly, there are downward pressures on some global prices. There is growing excess capacity to produce too many things. Moreover, unprecedented Credit Bubbles in China, Brazil, India, Turkey and EM generally are today at heightened – perhaps acute - risk. These (“periphery”) Credit systems and economies were the “global growth locomotives” at the heart of the “global reflation trade.” Meanwhile, the Trillions of “money” unleashed by global central bankers gravitate to inflating asset market Bubbles, now predominantly in the “developed” (“core”) economies. Even within EM, Chinese Credit system stress and attendant higher market yields provide a powerful magnet attracting enormous financial inflows, as destabilizing outbound flows appear likely for other key EM systems.
Notably, January is turning out to be a colossal month of debt issuance, with potentially record volumes of dollar-denominated international debt issuance. It is incredible to speak of “deflation” in the face of such liquidity abundance, generally ultra-loose (“still dancing”) financial conditions and myriad indications of excessive risk-taking. Is more “money” the solution?
And the unfolding policy dilemma seems to come into clearer focus by the week: Do central banks, in their incessant war against their perceived villain, the “deflation ogre”, continue to flood global financial markets with destabilizing liquidity? Or will they begin to take into account the true enemy of financial stability: increasingly conspicuous financial Bubbles (at the “core”)?
Curiously, Bernanke and the academics avoid discussing the key risk associated with QE – the risk that has remained at the forefront of my analysis for several years now: once aggressive monetary inflation has been commenced it becomes extremely difficult to stop. Will the Fed hawks succeed in trying to rein in the Fed’s runaway balance sheet growth? Or, as exuberant market participants assume, will central banks remain the prisoners of asset market and speculative Bubble fragilities?
Q&A from a panel discussion at the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Brookings Institute, January 16, 2014:
David Wessel: “What about the risk that what you’re doing now is sowing the seeds of the next bout of financial instability?”
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams: “In terms of these issues of greater risks?”
Wessel: “Yes, how much do you worry that what you’re doing now, because we’re clearly missing both the inflation and unemployment target that you’ve set – the mandate, risk is creating the financial instability that will give Janet Yellen a lot of headaches in her job?”
Williams: “We take this very seriously. Obviously, we’ve all learned the lessons of the past decade or so. We follow very carefully what’s happening in financial markets, both in the banking part of the financial system but most importantly…this is a capital markets-based economy. So it’s just not the banks. You have to think about the shadow banking system and the rest of the system. So we’re clearly studying this. We clearly have really increased our monitoring and our analysis around this. My argument would be the first line of defense regarding issues of growing financial risk is really around micro and macro prudential policies – both by having the right policies and implementing them… I think we’ve made incredibly important strides in terms of financial stability, in terms of the stress test, in terms of our implementation of Dodd Frank. So to my mind, we are on the job on that. We are studying that carefully. And we are balancing the costs and benefits around our QE policies. I view very strongly that the macroeconomic benefits far outweigh some of these issues right now. Risk aversion today in the markets generally – you can find specific examples, farm land prices or leveraged loan prices – but broadly defined, our financial system is still in a risk-averse mode and not a risk-loving mode. So I think these concerns today are still perhaps not as prevalent as some people think.”
Jon Hilsenrath, Wall Street Journal: “John (Williams) a question for you. The Fed employed a low for longer approach after the tech bubble burst. Several years later we had a housing bubble. I wanted to ask you, what is the risk, specifically, a low for longer policy could contribute to bubbles? Does it disturb you at all that it doesn’t seem that the (Michael) Woodford models, upon which low for longer is based, take much account for the creation of bubbles. And how should this factor into the Fed’s thinking now as it employs a low for longer policy again?”
Williams: “I agree with Marty (Feldstein) on this point. Our models that we use do not take seriously that there’s a complex financial system out there that can have endogenous changes in leverage, in risk-taking. And I would also add to that our models tend to assume highly rational agents who have a full understanding of things. So bubbles never occur. So I do think in our thinking about these issues we have to broaden our minds to more of an approach that allows for the fact that these things can happen; that asset markets can get away from fundamentals for significant periods of time. Financial markets can get disrupted. My answer to your question is I don’t think that the low interest rates were an important contributor to the housing bubble. I think fundamentally flawed aspects of our regulatory environment were the key part of that story about the housing bubble. I think Dodd Frank and Basel III and a lot of things we’re doing are addressing those concerns in a very important way. That said, I do think that we have to have open minds about understanding how low interest rates for a long period of time do affect risk-taking, leverage and asset prices, as Marty (Feldstein) said. “
Brookings Institution: January 16, 2014, Liaquat Ahamed: “We know what the benefits [from LSAPs/QE] are, because they’re lower long-term rates, lower mortgage rates. So what are the costs that you most worry about?’
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke: “Well I think that some of the costs that people talk about are not really costs, and I’ll mention a couple. One cost that gets talked about is, ‘is this going to be inflationary?’ While of course it’s always possible for the Fed to raise rates too late or too early and so on, I think we have plenty of tools now at this point – we’ve developed all the tools we need to manage interest rates – to tighten monetary policy even if the balance sheet stays where it is or gets bigger. And because we can do that, that means that we can run monetary policy in a normal way, and avoid any risk of any undue inflation or other such problems. So I don’t think that’s a concern and those who have been saying for the last five years that we’re just on the brink of hyperinflation – I think I would just point them to this morning’s CPI number and suggest that inflation is just not really a significant risk of this policy.
Another concern that people have talked about is the idea that the Fed might take capital losses, which of course is not impossible. But I would say that from a social point of view we have already not only helped the economy but we’ve actually helped the fiscal situation quite significantly with the hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve remitted to the Treasury – and that doesn’t even take into account the benefits for the public fiscal of a stronger economy, more tax revenues and the like. So that risk is again not a true social economic risk. It is, if anything perhaps, a public relations risk for the Fed. But it’s not a serious economic risk.
The main risk that my colleagues have pointed to is various aspects of financial stability – or potential for financial instability. There’s always some concern, really, for any kind of easy monetary policy, that after a period of time maybe some reaching for yield or some mis-valuation of assets. And given what happened of course just five years ago, we’re extraordinarily sensitive to that risk. Now, of course, that’s really for different kinds of monetary policy. QE in addition works on term premiums to a significant extent and we simply have less knowledge and information as to how term premiums are determined, and therefore there’s an additional concern, volatility associated with the management of QE. So there are certainly some risks there.
Our strategy, though, has been to not distort monetary policy in order to address those risks directly. Indeed, insufficient monetary policy accommodation, if it leads to a weaker economy and bad credit outcomes, etc., it’s also a financial stability risk. So our basic approach has been, at least for the first, second and third lines of defense, to rely on supervision, regulation, monitoring, macro-prudential policies – that whole set of tools that we have and are developing to try to avoid potential problems. We also look very carefully at the implications of any potential kind of financial imbalance. For example, is that asset class heavily levered – is it supported heavily by leverage, which would in turn mean that a sharp drop in that valuation would lead to other types of problems. Those are the kinds of things we look at, and we greatly increased our ability to monitor and analyze those types of situations. So our goal is to address financial instability concerns primarily, at least in the first instance, through supervision, regulation and other microeconomic types of tools. But it is something that I think of the various costs that have been ascribed to QE, I think it’s the only one that I find personally credible, frankly. And it’s the one we have spent the most time thinking about and trying to make sure that we can address it the best we can.”
Ahamed: “The bottom line, for the moment you’re not worried about too much froth in financial markets?”
Bernanke: “Well, it’s always of course bad luck to make any forecast about any particular market. But the markets currently seem to be broadly within the metrics of market valuation– valuation seems to be broadly within historical ranges. The financial system is strong. The key financial institutions are well-capitalized. So we are watching this very vigilantly. We’ve developed tremendous additional capacity for doing that. But at this point we don’t think that – and I think I can speak for my colleagues on this – we don’t think that financial stability concerns should at this point detract from the need for monetary policy accommodation which we are continuing to provide.”
Back in late 2004 during the first year of the Hat Trick Letter, my father had a conversation with me on his front porch. He was concerned about a negative streak in my perspective and a critical slant in my analytic work. He actually helped me in writing style, not content, like to correct errors in sentence construction. He pointed out lack of parallels, dangling modifiers, vague antecedents, and competing imagery. Many smaller discussions had taken place about a broken economy, absent industry from offshore efforts, debt buildup, enormous imbalances, the war machine emphasis, banker corruption, and unsound money itself. He always was concerned about the federal debt, citing it many times, and was alarmed later in 2006 when informed that foreigners held more than half our debt. He challenged me to produce solutions to the current difficult situation in the United States, an invitation to embark upon a positive streak. He was warned to be discouraged by the task. My response was direct and immediate, as a list would be produced, along with reasons why not a single suggestion would ever come to pass.
The following comments between us were focused on the naive nature of the entire exercise, since a vile criminal element had overtaken the nation at its highest levels. He disagreed and scoffed at any fascist reference, despite the recital of fascist evidence on my diligent student-like part. After the list was offered to my father, which contained most of the items listed below, he never pursued the negative streak criticism again. He was overwhelmed at the details, and the linked reasons for the continued broken features, each tied to corrupt elements and their extreme profiteering. My oft-used line was that where multi-$billions in profiteering and exploitation were involved, even if countless citizen lives were affected, the crime would continue. He was silent at the end, pensive, discouraged, impressed, but silent, exactly as warned. He admitted not to understand much of the factors.
In the following years, his subtle insults about a crystal ball and boasts of correct forecasts tossed the gauntlet once more before the Jackass feet. My response was to list almost 20 correct forecasts, against possibly two in error. There is always a desire for a son to please and impress his father, like a cat dropping a captured bird before the master’s feet. The phenomenon is only human and reaches into the deepest part of our origins in family. Our relationship remains strained, but he has noted the impressive newsletter parade in general terms. He realizes that a solution is not coming internally to the nation, as it will be imposed from foreign entities and forces. He realizes the King Dollar is in trouble, without benefit of any perception of the Petro-Dollar defacto standard or the many devices relied upon to hold the system in place. He realizes that many forecasts have been correct, although the details and rationale are not fully comprehended. Every veiled insult of a crystal ball, or misinterpreted past analytic point (called wrong forecast) has been met with a friendly offering of the correct forecast list. He once asked to hear a few in specific terms, asked and delivered with a synopsis of reasoning behind the call and statement of its advanced call. Finally he gets it.
The sad state of affairs has as much to do with inadequate education in economics, finance, and science, as it does with apathy, everyday pressures, and ample distractions. It is always difficult to achieve approval from the general audience when operating within the alternative media, where rebels roam and the lunatic fringe is tolerated. My frequent reminder to clients is that 80% of the mainstream media news stories are lies, or contain deep deceptions to support the power structure, while 80% of the alternative media is truth, with its fair share of exaggerations and lesser journalist quality.
SOLUTIONS FOR RESTORING THE UNITED STATES
Permit the Jackass a diversion into the ideal realm. It will pass. Many identifiable solutions can be cited if the people are determined to work toward a solution for the United States of America, for its return to health and strength, for its restoration as a cradle of capitalism and a beacon of freedom. Obviously it is too late, but from an idealist point of view, many solutions do exist and could have been pursued following the 2000 market bust and tech telecom chapter. They also could have been pursued following the 2008 market bust and Lehman chapter. They could have been pursued following the Black Money 1987 event, which was the original quintessential signal of dire conditions. The 1987 event in the Jackass view was a seminal signal in response to a decade of moving US industry offshore to the Pacific Rim. The event was a financial tremor in response. Each breakdown has resulted in deeper commitment in the wrong direction, deeper devotion to the financial sector, deeper involvement in criminal behavior. Each breakdown resulted in an even greater dependence upon asset bubbles for wealth creation, instead of work. Each bust leads to deep corruption, not a pursuit of solutions.
The climax error was the Most Favored Nation status granted to China, which led to the departure of a significant core of US industry, along with its legitimate core income. National treason, both political and corporate, became touted as expedient, with veiled cries of patriotism heard. The dependence grew acutely in the last 2000 decade, where the great asset bubble was the housing market and mortgage finance twin bubble. The current greatest asset bubble is the USTreasury Bonds complex, the final chapter before financial ruin and systemic breakdown. The hidden official objective is to preserve power, not to reinstate conditions for a viable future. Evidence is seen in the QE to Infinity for monetized bond purchase (heretic to the core), and the Zero Interest Rate Policy forever (heretic to the core). Both monetary policies are blessed as necessary, prudent, even urgent today, in a grotesque display of disastrous leadership which presides over catastrophe. The bitter fruit of the Fascist Business Model is being witnessed today. It began twelve years ago with a Fascist Manifesto. Let this list serve as Popular Manifesto that addresses the broken parts, the criminal elements, and the deep rot, with cries for effective process, equitable function, and justice.
Consider the following solutions. The first has been regularly recited by the Jackass as demonstrated proof that the political and banking leadership are not pursuing a solution at all, and never have been. They avoid the big bank liquidation as a start. They instead have promoted the Too Big to Fail mantra, which has morphed into the Too Big to Manage mantra, and later into the Too Big to Jail jabber. The objective in the policy making circles has been since 2007 to preserve the power structure and to retain the privilege to print wealthy to their own camp in the banking sector. The objective has not been to pursue solutions, to order reform, or to work in reconstruction. The result has been degradation and continued collapse, while every major financial market is controlled, and the entire housing market is charred wreckage. The people used to enjoy protection from the managed inflation by home ownership. No longer. They used to have a backup pension fund, but it is at great risk. They used to have a vote, but the entire voting process has been subverted by direct fraud and Diebold software controls, even bussed aliens lined up at the voting centers. The list of 2004 solutions offered by the Jackass should be revisited. In review, notice how each element of the proposed manifesto of solutions has no chance whatsoever of being installed as policy. They go against the heart of the power structure and controlled markets. They outline what the officials would deem sedition, if not revolt. Recall that the Occupy Wall Street movement was dealt with like a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, consider the list and chew over their themes, while reviewing the many policy directives in the last ten years that have remained in a dedicated and committed manner off the trajectory toward solution, while maintaining the primary official objective of retaining power. The policy answers of free money, ample controls, lost rights, and fresh socialist programs are the bitter fruit of failure. A failed state lies before us.
1) Liquidate the big broken insolvent banks, since they are crime centers, then follow through with RICO asset seizures with a team of special prosecutors answering to the states, not the federal government.
2) Halt all USGovt security agency narcotics business, including DEA drug seizures going into inventory, and Coast Guard escorts of incoming shipments, even usage of the presidential yacht through the Panama Canal, and eliminate the usage of NATO airbases for narcotics distribution, finally investigating Wall Street banks for money laundering of narcotics funds.
3) End a foreign war after the first six months, after which the cost & benefit is openly analyzed in a public forum, along with defense contractor gains, while giving full debate to the War Powers Act in returning them to the Congress, and instead engaging in peace talks.
4) Eliminate all former Wall Street bankers from participating in any federal financial regulatory body, using instead regional bankers from the many states and corporate heads.
5) Eliminate all financial contributions to Congressional members, and all private contributions to legislation, with prosecution and disclosure of all large past donations and their effects, using a portion of IRS tax receipts instead for political campaigns.
6) Force divestiture of all conglomerate corporations in the news media organizations, including television, newspaper, magazine, radio, and online sites with encouragement by the FCC for small private media businesses alongside regional and village voices.
7) Limit the advertisement and financial support for financial media by the banking sector and managed fund centers, due to conflict of interest.
8) Conduct full audits with powerful prosecution on Pentagon procurements and appropriations for the last 30 years, including the $2.2 trillion USArmy Accounting report that was discussed the day before 911. Recall that over 80% of Pentagon victims from the 911 attack were accountants working in or near that office.
9) Return the majority of off-shore manufacturing to the US, by means of tax credits and regulatory waivers, even industrial parks, with further credits on worker training programs, in order to restore idle plants, rather than to permit China to do the same on US soil.
10) Eliminate all financial sector computer generated buy programs, the so-called High Frequency Trading, with private sector investigations into insider trading from private state prosecutors.
11) Force total complete full disclosure of the extensive financial derivatives that support the vaporous financial foundation, including foreign financial subsidiaries, which extend to LIBOR, FOREX, and Gold markets.
12) Halt all further home foreclosures, rescind all foreclosures in process, conduct full national investigations into the mortgage bond fraud, the mortgage bond fraud by Fannie Mae et al, the mortgage contract fraud by Wall Street banks, the MERS title database fraud, and work a national program to enable dispossessed citizens to win back their homes, during restitution lawsuits of the big banks and financial firms responsible.
13) Force total complete full disclosure of the USDept Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, and all its tentacles, including to foreign financial markets.
14) End taxation on ex-patriots who leave the United States after a three-year period, following a submission of a financial statement, with a suggestion box on how to improve life in our once great nation.
15) Install tougher math and science requirements for graduation from US high schools, and designate poor high school districts for property tax sharing from some wealthy districts in order to fund the poor ones.
16) Shut down the COMEX for contract fraud, which has extended to a stack of naked shorts in precious metals, evergreen gold contracts, and lately refusal to deliver on PM contracts, even forced cash settlement.
17) Enforce the Freedom of Information Act, and shut down the Utah NSA center, otherwise called the Big Brother Fortress, then grant high priority to protection to all whistle blowers at the corporate and national level, followed by elimination of all coordinated projects with Intel, Microsoft, Google, FaceBook, and other processor designers and social media firms.
18) Rescind the Patriot Act and restore the Constitution with Bill of Rights, while conducting an investigation of all Supreme Court justices for bribery, coercion, and conflict of interest.
19) Remove illegal aliens from the United States after a 90-day warning, unless they pursue a newly designed fast track citizenship program for integration.
20) Return to the Gold standard for a new Global Dollar, and encourage barter systems that reduce the payment streams, while encouraging other nations to construct regional currencies backed by their own ample resources, then tying them to the Global Dollar flagship in a tributary development system.
Dream on, folks! Idealism has its place in the town halls, college dorms, bar rooms, and man caves. In the meantime invest in Gold & Silver bars and coins, and store your booty outside the US borders. The threats to personal wealth have never been so great. This entire article should be regarded as a warning and wake-up call that bonafide solutions are not on the table and are actually considered unpatriotic if not laden with sedition. No solutions are coming, only a slam of non-linear adjustments and painful resets. The only response to unsound money, hidden wealth confiscation, and obstacles to secure true savings should be urgent investment in Gold & Silver and defiance of spouted propaganda.
The solution is coming, but it comes from the East like a sledge hammer. The centers for global financial reform are the BRICS nations, the G-20 Forum, the Shanghai Coop Organization, and GATA. If and when the solution is imposed from entities outside the nation, then the result will be a rapid decline, a sudden shock, and a vast elimination of paper wealth inside the United States. The Jackass has been clear for several years, that the USA is heading for a slide into the De-Industrialized Third World (DI3W) for refusal to pursue proper just solutions. The slide will occur when the USDollar is no longer widely accepted for trade payments. The slide will occur when the USTreasury Bond is no longer widely used for banking system reserves. The global financial hegemony, whereby the USDollar in recent years has openly been supported by the USMilitary with flank support by numerous agencies, is coming to an end. The people can join the Gold Train with Silver cars, or they can watch their home equity, pension funds, life savings, and income sources go down the drain as the global reset occurs. The reset is code word for the Return to Gold Standard, but the USGovt authorities do not wish to forewarn its population of a grand resurrection in the gold price. The Elite are furiously buying and stealing gold, sometimes under cover of war. The United States is the obstacle for the final implementation of the global reset. Invest in Gold & Silver, if you can find any at these artificial intervened phony prices. Find an Asian source, hire an Asian agent, and use an Asian vault. All has been turned upside down, as formerly communist has converted to capitalist, and formerly capitalist has converted to fascist. Go Gold!!
No comments:
Post a Comment