By Michael Trinkle, ForexTraders

Two of the most powerful people in the world will speak Thursday morning concerning the global economic outlook.  The EUR/USD has moved up slightly during the London session on the heels of positive bond auctions in Spain and France; however, the market was unable to bid prices up beyond yesterday’s HI’s at 1.2855 as investors wait for European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet to speak at 8:30 am and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke at 9:00 am.

Although today is heavy with key risk events, the market may not break out of its trading range until the Non-Farm Payroll release tomorrow morning.  NFP tends to be one of the most revered key leading indicators of economic health, and the market may be hesitant to commit to large directional positions before the NFP confirms economic direction.

Trichet

As stated, the euro found strong support this morning as a result of strong bond auctions in France and Spain.  Strong bond auctions are expected in France, but the market is still watching Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Ireland very closely.  For several months now, we have been writing about the possibility of the EuroZone Debt Crisis re-emerging this fall.  One of the leading indicators that will show the EuroZone is again in serious trouble will be when and if these struggling countries face difficult bond auctions.  As of yet, there is still plenty of investor demand for these bonds, but if the fiscal concerns do become serious enough that investors are unwilling to buy Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, or Italy’s bonds, then there will most likely be a huge bout of risk aversion that sweeps the market once again.

European equity markets remained subdued even in light of the positive bond auctions as investors were unwilling to bid prices up before Trichet speaks this morning.  The market will be watching and listening closely to see whether Trichet formally commits to extending liquidity to help the European banking system.  GDP blew past market expectations in the 2nd quarter.  The expected figure was 0.7%, and the actual figure came out at 1.0%, which was quite surprising considering the systemic problems the EuroZone faced during the Q2 with its Debt Crisis.  However, Germany was able to benefit enormously from a cheap euro as its exports were much more attractive to foreign buyers, and that increased exporting activity in Germany helped overall EuroZone GDP tremendously.  Now, many economists are concerned that economic growth will slow significantly in Q3 as the euro has strengthened during the last 3 months.

Trichet is also expected to cast a cautious tone concerning economic outlook, but traders will be listening closely for any new verbiage or departure from his normal mood of cautious optimism.  Trichet has also been championing fiscal austerity in developed nations, saying that countries such as the U.S. should turn to decreasing government spending.  Interestingly enough, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is actually about to the do the exact opposite as he and the rest of his Board Members at the Fed are currently preparing to inject another round of fiscal stimulus into the U.S. economy.

Bernanke

Today, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will be testifying before the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission in Washington DC.  Bernanke’s testimony comes in 2 parts:  a written, prepared statement and an open Q&A session with the Congressional board.  The prepared statement does not generally move the market as most of his verbiage will most likely be as expected, but during the Q&A, his answers to tough questions oftentimes offer a clearer picture to investors concerning the Federal Reserve’s next steps.

The most likely scenario in the United States is that the economy will enter into a prolonged period of very sluggish growth.  Mr. Bernanke has been communicating this view consistently, but he is concerned that the very sluggish growth could pull the U.S. into a deflationary period, which can be disastrous for an economy and can lead to a decade or more of virtually no economic growth.  This fear is why Mr. Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are seriously considering yet another round of quantitative easing.  They are willing to do anything to stimulate the economy back into robust growth.

Market Price Action

Yesterday, we mentioned the euro was beginning to put pressure on resistance to the upside.  We currently have some very fascinating price action beginning to develop between the euro, pound, and dollar.  Generally, the EUR/USD and GBP/USD move in very tight correlation.  However, we have been seeing that correlation break down over the last few days.  This morning, U.K. Nationwide HPI came out below the market expectation of -0.3% at -0.9%.  This surprise to the downside led the pound to move lower in the immediate aftermath of the release and then to drift sideways and lower throughout the London session.
 
On the other hand, the euro has again moved to the upside during the London session today.  The economic outlook and Central Bank leaders in the U.S, U.K. and EuroZone are diverging.  In the EuroZone, Trichet is by far the most hawkish concerning interest rates and monetary conditions, and the EuroZone is also posting pretty good economic data relative to these other countries.  Therefore, the euro is beginning to move higher, and if economic data continues to back up Trichet’s decisions, we could see the euro move up quite a bit versus both the dollar and pound in the coming weeks.

Of course, the elephant in the room concerning the EuroZone is the possibility that any day the EuroZone Debt Crisis could begin to erupt again, but currently those fears seem to be on the backburner.  If the sovereign default concerns in the EuroZone can remain contained, then the euro could move up quite nicely in the next few months.

We have been calling for a huge drop in the euro at some point in the latter part of 2010, but the reality is that will most likely not happen as long as the Debt Crisis remains under control.  As a trader, be on the lookout for the first signs of major fiscal trouble in struggling EuroZone countries.

More articles from ForexTraders….

The Daily Reckoning

Well, August washed up. It was the worst month for US stocks in almost a decade. And yesterday didn’t help. The Dow couldn’t manage a rally. It rose just 4 points.

The British newspaper, The Telegraph, has the story:

Those fears took centre stage again during the final day of trading.

In New York, markets enjoyed some brief respite from the blizzard of weak data as reports on the US housing market and consumer confidence proved better than feared. The Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence climbed to 53.5 last month from 51 in July, while the latest reading from the respected S&P/Case-Shiller index showed that home prices were up 4.2pc in June compared with a year ago.

The day’s rally proved short-lived, however, after the minutes of the Federal Reserve’s latest meeting returned investors to the summer’s familiar themes. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has spent the past few weeks facing increasing pressure from markets to publicly declare he will do more to fight the prospect of a second recession if the recovery stumbles further. According to the minutes, some members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee saw “increased downside risks to the outlook for both growth and inflation”.

That admission left the Dow up just 4.99 points at 10,014.72 for the day, while the S&P ended the day up 0.41 at 1,049.33.

As predicted on this page, both Martin Wolf and Paul Krugman are taking the low road. Not that we wouldn’t take it too, were we in their position. They urged the Obama team to undertake massive programs of “stimulus.” Now that the stimulus hasn’t worked, they say it wasn’t massive enough.

And thank God the administration at least took some of our advice, they add. Otherwise, things would be a lot worse!

In today’s Financial Times, Wolf refers to a recent paper by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. The two use a “standard macro-economic model” to determine that without the feds’ intervention the decline in GDP would have been three times worse and unemployment would have risen to over 16%. And, can you believe it, we would have had a federal deficit of $2.6 trillion.

Oh man, oh man…we’re so grateful to Wolf, Krugman, Summers, Obama, Bernanke and all the other savants who protected us from such a dreadful fate.

But wait a minute, this “standard macro-economic model” sounds great and all…but we can’t help but wonder. It can predict precise outcomes based on federal policy inputs, right? That is, if the feds were to do such and such…it tells us what will happen, right? And Wolf says it’s “standard,” so we imagine that you can get it at any Wal-Mart or filling station. So, the Obama team must have had it two years ago, right? We can’t help wonder if this was the same model they used when they forecast that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% – if Congress agreed to the stimulus bill the administration proposed. Must have been a different one… Because Congress did pass the stimulus bill and unemployment rose over 9% anyway.

And it’s still over 9% – almost 2 years after the stimulus effort got underway.

So, maybe this “standard macro-economic model” is full of… But let’s imagine that it isn’t. Let’s allow our imaginations to take flight…to soar…to loose themselves from the gravity of worldly cares or practical reality. Let’s imagine that these economists have a clue!

Imagine that the feds had done nothing – which was more or less standard policy for the nation from its founding in 1776 up until the middle of Herbert Hoover’s term in 1930…and for all the years that preceded them…all the way back to the founding of Rome. Now, let’s imagine that Blinder and Zandi are right. Without fed intervention, GDP would have sunk 12% – three times more than the actual loss…and half the loss of the Great Depression. Well, that would have been a disaster, right?

Well. Maybe not. It might have been a blessing. The point of a correction is to correct. The Blinder/Zandi study tells us that the economy had mistakes equal to 12% of GDP. Okay…well, maybe the correction overshoots. Who knows? But think of the crazy years of the Bubble Epoque…when lenders were giving unemployed people a mortgage for 110% of the inflated value of a house. Think about the Private Equity deals based on growth assumptions that were hallucinatory. Think about the hundreds of trillions’ worth of derivatives based on complex formulae that were phony and silly? Think of all the decisions made on the assumption that consumer credit would continue to expand as it had from 1949 to 2007. Was one of every 8 of them too optimistic? Too ambitious? Too unrealistic? We’d be surprised if there weren’t more errors…far more than 12% of GDP.

Now ask yourself…what good was done by failing to correct those mistakes? By failing to wash out the excess debt? Failing to allow insolvent banks to go broke? Failing to permit worn-out, uncompetitive businesses to die in peace?

We don’t know how many mistakes there were. We don’t know how far GDP SHOULD go down. And we don’t know what would have happened if willing buyers and sellers had been allowed to sort themselves out in the age- old ways – by panic, default, bankruptcy, restructuring, and reconstruction.

We don’t know. We’ll never know. But there is no reason to think we’d be any worse off if we’d found out a year ago. A 12% drop in GDP might have been just what we needed. We could be on the road to prosperity now, rather than looking at another 5 to 15 years of stagnation, decline, and desperation.

And more thoughts…

But we have good news. Yes, dear reader, genuine, no-doubt-about-it good news.

Two bits of good news, actually.

First, the café across the street from our office serves a proper café au lait. A real one.

In Paris these days, if you ask for a “café au lait” they mark you as a foreigner. Parisians ask for a “café crème.” Trouble is, the café crème doesn’t have much milk in it. It tends to be a bit watery and bitter.

A proper café au lait, on the other hand, is served with a little pitcher of hot milk. Not many cafes in Paris still serve it that way – unless you ask them specifically. Fortunately, the one across the street still does it the right way.

Second, and perhaps more important, we discovered yesterday that tea- totallers die sooner than heavy drinkers. This comes as a great relief to your editor. He sat down last night with a bottle of Lussac St. Emilion to celebrate.

Here’s the story from John Cloud (originally appearing in Time Magazine):

Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don’t drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that – for reasons that aren’t entirely clear – abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one’s risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers’ mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don’t have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It’s true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors – job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don’t get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables – socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on – the researchers (a six- member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There’s also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• Government is Still Misleading and Economists are Still Mis-interpreting
• America Completes Collection of Welfare State Essentials With Health Care System
• Most Government Services Are Disservices
• Almost Every Mortgage Written Last Year Underwritten by US Government
• Mr. Market Never Gets a Say on Government Jobs

More articles from The Daily Reckoning….

Zero Hedge

Seeing Past The Hologram, by Mike Krieger of KAM LP

There is no distinctly American criminal class – except Congress.

- All quotes by Mark Twain

We Need Real Confidence to Return, Not Confidence in a Ponzi Scheme

Last week I pointed out that what I got from Banana Ben’s speech in Jackson Hole was that he realized any major public statement of interference in markets was too risky at this point following his announcement at the last meeting to keep the balance sheet steady by reinvesting MBS proceeds into treasury securities.  The operative word in this sentence being “public.”  Anyone that believes this means the Fed and government will just take a back seat and do nothing behind the scenes is deluding themselves.  Washington D.C. and the Fed still fail to comprehend how to increase standards of living in the real world, rather they remain completely addicted to the short-term buzz of printed money heroin as it flows through the house of cards they have created.  They also think that the only thing that really matters in an economy is “confidence.”  As Madoff can attest to, that is indeed the case when you are running a ponzi scheme and since the U.S. government is basically that I can understand where they are coming from.

 I agree that confidence is a huge part of any healthy economy; however, I do not define confidence in the way these arrogant bureaucrats do.  They think confidence comes from rising asset prices, including stocks and homes.  They think this is enough to spark growth in the real economy.  This is nonsense.  The confidence that is needed more than anything else today is two-fold.  First, confidence that there is the rule of law and there will be the rule of law in the future.  The second is that the money issued by the government will maintain its purchasing power over time.  As I have made clear on various occasions, I do not have confidence in either of these things based on how the government has responded to the crisis.  I do not like buying physical gold.  I do not like feeling the need to write these emails every week to warn people.  I wish I could employ capital into businesses and the real economy.  I hope that one day I will be able to do so, but at the moment I do not trust my government and I certainly don’t trust the fascist Federal Reserve.  So I will hoard what I have as the government prints and let the storm pass me by.  I am not the only one.  People are collectively starting to understand this.  So what happens when the big, smart money takes itself out of the investment and capital allocation game because they don’t trust anything?  What happens when the government’s response to this is to print money to keep up the spending habits of people with no jobs or people with government jobs that produce no goods for the economy?  You get the worst case scenario and that is exactly what is staring us straight in the face.

Is a Trade War with China Coming?

The quicker the dollar is devalued the better.  This is not to say that I think dollar devaluation is a good thing.  It is to say we are past the point of avoiding it.  We could have taken the pain in 2008, but instead it was extend and pretend all over again.  Now the debt and promises are too big.  The behind the scenes manipulations are too entrenched.  There is no avoiding a devaluation relative to things people need (food and energy) and capital goods that are imported.  The best thing would be to get it over with and then change policies and restore the rule of law.  The problem with this is that the main currencies the dollar needs its major adjustment against are those in emerging Asia and China.  What has prevented the realignment from happening in a quick and healthy way is China’s refusal to allow the yuan to appreciate.  This creates a situation where Central Banks throughout emerging Asia take steps to prevent their “free-floating” currencies from adjusting either.  If China does not change its policy I fear that what we are looking at a trade war with China after the November elections.  I think Congress and the Administration will start to introduce aggressive policies to discourage Chinese goods and encourage goods made at home.  Think it can’t happen?  We are a lot closer than you think.  This all goes back to my “think local” theme.  While I am inherently a fan of free trade we do not have free trade in any sense whatsoever.  We have policies that are geared to advantage the multi-national corporations at the expense of the U.S. citizen.  The U.S. consumer has merely been spending borrowed money.  This gave an illusion that the U.S. was benefiting from the global multinational corporate rigged market whose model mainly thrives on companies moving abroad to exploit the labor arbitrage caused by a combination of what was a labor surplus (no longer it seems) and a rigged currency.  As more people realize this, more pressure will be placed on politicians and ultimately this will overpower the corporate lobbyists and a trade war of sorts will begin.  Then the chaos could really ensue as we engage in a trade war with our biggest creditor!

Seeing Past the Hologram

The past couple of weeks have been extraordinarily interesting and some of the moves appear to be extremely important.  Although a lot of people like to point to the treasury market and then extrapolate out as to what this means to equities and the ability of the government to increase spending, I think this is the most USELESS market in the world to watch.  If anything is a hologram and a PR tool it is the U.S. treasury market.  How can people with a straight face come out and extrapolate anything from a market where the Federal Reserve is buying the debt of its own government!  The Fed is merely the fiat drug dealer to a government addicted to spending and false promises.  The equity market is the second most useless market in my opinion.  There is no doubt in my mind that a huge part of the government’s “strategy” to build confidence is to keep this thing from doing what it should be doing.  Thus, I am not surprised at all that since I last wrote the S&P500 was +1.6%, -1.5%, flat, and then +3.0%.  So what you have seen is high volatility with no real direction.  How can anyone have confidence this that thing is for real?

So what markets do I watch?  I get the most from the FX markets and the commodity markets.  While these markets are no doubt manipulated heavily as well, I think this is where the players that really understand the macro are playing.  The first currency I check in the morning is the dollar/yen.  The reason for this is that the yen is back to the highs of 1995 and if it does not stop appreciating around this level I think the Bank of Japan is going to absolutely panic.  While the yen has not broken higher yet as market participants are afraid of such intervention, unless the BOJ does something extreme soon the market may test their resolve and push this thing further.  I guess the main point I am trying to make is that with the Chinese yuan NOT strengthening and the yen threatening to break out we could be in for some major fireworks.  Meanwhile Japanese 10 year government bond yields have really started to spike lately (chart GJG10 Index on Bloomberg).  Something big is happening in the land of the rising sun.  In the back of my head I think that any panic move from the BOJ could be the spark that breaks government bond bubbles globally and ushers in a period of massive global commodity driven inflation as every country tries to devalue their way to prosperity.  Essentially, a fiat money version of the 1930’s beggar thy neighbor policies.  When this begins the rush into gold and silver that we have seen thus far will look like a trickle.  I don’t think people will be able to find supply anywhere near the quoted price on comex (or as some like to call it “crimex”).

This brings me to silver which potentially experienced a game changer last week.  I can’t remember the last time silver bounced back almost immediately after every attempted raid.  I am starting to wonder how much physical silver is available.  What we do know is that Central Banks do not store silver to manipulate markets.  Even if it doesn’t break out right now, there is no asset in the world that has more upside than silver.  Don’t buy SLV either.  Buy physical silver not something with JPM as a custodian. 

I also continue to watch food prices very closely.  Wheat, which has come off of its high now seems to have found a base at a price that is 50% higher than the end of June.  Corn prices are threatening to break above resistance at levels 30% where they were at the end of June.  Rice looks like it could have a long way to go on the upside as it is only 20% off of its June low.  If I were a foreign government I would be using this opportunity to buy every single grain of rice I could in order to feed my people when things get dicey in the months ahead.  After strong performance in recent months lean hogs and live cattle also look set to make another push to the upside.  How people in the investment world still focus on the government inflation statistics is beyond me.  It was the rampant commodity inflation, trucker strikes and food riots that played a key role in ending the game in 2008.  This is because it forced the emerging markets to raise rates and cool growth as the Western world imploded under a pile of debt.  It seems the whole play is starting again and people remain focused on deflation.  Deflation in some things yes I agree (discretionary things like homes, technology, stock prices, etc), but not in the things you NEED to buy!!!

Onto oil which is also exhibiting some strange moves.  The Asian benchmark Tapis has not experienced the recent volatility and weakness that WTI has and is currently trading at $80/b.  The Asian price is the one I really pay attention to since that is where the demand growth resides.  The spread between the two now is back above $6/b, which is toward the high end of the range for the past two years.  This tells me that one price is wrong and the spread should narrow.  Given what I think about currency debasement and lack of appropriate investment in the space I think WTI should rally.  We shall see…

A Primer on the Federal Reserve

For those that read my commentary on the Federal Reserve as an immoral an fascist institution and think to themselves “what is this guy talking about,” I have attached a video from G Edward Griffith (the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island).  It’s a great description of how the Fed was formed and who it answers to when push comes to shove.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450#

Also in case you weren’t aware of the power grab that the “Financial Reform” legislation allowed the Fed, read this Bloomberg article. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-09-02/bernanke-meets-buffett-in-new-role-conceived-to-protect-markets.html

All the best,
Mike

More articles from Zero Hedge….

Zero Hedge

We continue with our series of artist renderings of various infamous desktops (previously Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and Lloyd Blankfein). Today, we focus on that of administration straight shooter Rahm Emanuel.

h/t Mike

More articles from Zero Hedge….

The Daily Reckoning

Before we get stuck into today’s financial world, a request: please don’t store petrol in your garage. A reader took us to task for suggesting that last week in our survivalists “to own” list. It was just a list. But her point is well taken. Petrol doesn’t keep well. And you may need it later to burn all your paper money and furniture to keep warm. So store it somewhere safe, if you’re going to store it at all.

But perhaps all this talk of a Long Depression is premature. We’ve just finished revising and remaking our case for D2 (the Second Great Depression) in the latest issue of Australian Wealth Gameplan. We were all set with a fairly conventional analysis of the macro-economic scene when we decided to scratch the whole thing and re-write it from a long-term historical perspective.

Usually these attempts are either incredibly stimulating and provocative or really boring for everyone else to read. Hopefully it won’t be boring. But our main point is that when you’re living in the middle of one, a long depression probably doesn’t feel like it. It feels like every day things might get better. But they don’t, at least not for a long while.

You certainly wouldn’t suggest Australia is in the middle of Long Depression based on yesterday’s current account deficit figures. Boy howdy, were they good! The current account deficit went from $16.5 billion in the March quarter to just $5.6 billion in the June quarter. As a percentage of GDP, the current account deficit is now at its smallest level in about 30 years.

Go iron ore!

Go coal!

Go!

The improvement in Australia’s terms of trade is what accounted for the big jump. Record prices for iron ore and coal increased what Australia got paid for exports. And import prices – what Australia pays for the things it buys from the rest of the world – did not grow as fast. Presto. Change-o. Record low current account deficit.

Naturally, a record jump in the terms of trade – 12.5% for the quarter and 24.5% for the year – is the sort of spike that would convince us export prices have peaked and the Chinese real estate crash is imminent. Based on the Economic Statement in published in July, the government is counting a record-high terms of trade to support revenues, bring down the debt, and spur mining investment (despite the MRRT).

Speaking of the government, apparently there still isn’t one. You might have expected this lack of political certainty (clarity about the future rate of taxation on mining companies) to be negative for the share market. But apparently Aussie investors – and maybe their leveraged global contemporaries – are drinking from the big jug of Kool Aid Ben Bernanke and the Fed have brewed.

In fact, whether Aussie investors are reacting to the prospect of Quantitative Easing from the Fed or not, it’s pretty clear that not having a government is not a negative for share prices. Long live the status quo!

But on this issue of the Fed, the relevant question is how QEII would operate. We were going to write “work,” but we’re certain it’s going to fail inasmuch as its ultimate aim is get credit flowing again in America. The Fed is pushing households and businesses to do something they’ve decided they don’t want to do: borrow and spend.

If the aim of QEII is to get consumer spending back up to 70% of American GDP so it can drive global growth and restore the status quo ante the Global Financial Crisis, it will fail and gold and other tangible assets will keep going up. But if the goal of QEII is to buy corporate stocks and bonds to make everyone feel richer so that they might behave with more fiscal irresponsibility, well doggone it, it might just be crazy enough to work!

By work, we mean it might create a bid for stock prices, what with everyone knowing the Fed is there to buy. In fact, it would probably be a very good time to be a seller with the Fed on the other side of the trade. Maybe that’s why everyone’s buying now, so they can sell to the Fed later.

Of course, there’s a long way to go between speculating about QEII will manifest itself and the Fed actually buying stocks outright. But just as a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so also does the destruction of a currency begin with baby moves.

And finally, about that list of things to stock up on for Long Depression, what do you reckon was at the top of most people’s lists? Salt! It was followed closely by sugar, soap, silver, bullets, and booze.

We got many notes on the subject and have read them all. We’re not able to reply to each one personally, but thanks for all the effort. We’ll compile a master-list and make it available later this week. Meanwhile, here was one of our favourite notes:

Hi ,

On reading your list I thought it appropriate to add rifle etc to the list , particularly as you have bullets on the list. I’d also add the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud, with appropriate iconography should someone with bigger guns happen by.

I’d also add antibiotics, condoms (you can hope while you despair).

Did I mention a phrase book with simple to pronounce invitations, “To come in into my storage unit for bouncy bouncy” ?

If none of that was of use…I’d then do the unthinkable…invest in a Managed Fund!!

Regards,

HB

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• Statistical Models Can’t Predict the Future
• September is the Best Month for Gold
• Australia’s Current Account Deficit Up 4%
• Right Time for Gold Stocks
• Australian GDP is Doing Better Than the U.S.

More articles from The Daily Reckoning….

Zero Hedge

The SSTF has (finally) released its June trading results. June is a big
month for the Fund. Every June they aggregate all of their cash
positions and reinvest the proceeds in newly issued securities with
maturities from one to fifteen-years. There a few observations I would
like to make regarding these results. First a look at the trading
blotter. I will reuse sections of this report later on so don’t get hung
up now on these big numbers.

There were a total of 36 separate transactions during the month. Not a
big deal for your average day trader. But consider the size of these
deals. The total turnover for the month was $612 Billion. That ain’t
hay. The total assets held by the Fund were about $2.6 T so SS turned
over the equivalent of 25% of its book in just one month. Two
observations:

-I constantly see reports in the media on SS that argue that there is no
money in the TF. That the assets are not real. That there is no
liquidity in the securities held by the Fund. That it is a Ponzi
accounting scam. A look at the June results prove that those claims are
all false. The extreme naysayers of SS should look at this and wake up.
These are very real assets. They are liquid.

-From the CBO to other government officials to Wall Street and most
other economists we are getting a measure of the nations debt that is a
function of the Debt Held by the Public. The CBO thinks our debt is 53%
of GDP because they conveniently forget about the intergovernmental
accounts (where SS fits in). The total IG account is $4.5T and has trust
funds that are comprised substantially of special issue treasury
securities.

Both sides of this need to wake up and smell the coffee. These debts are
very real. They are legally as binding as those securities held by the
Chinese Central Bank. When we talk about our debt these should be
included. Our debt is not 53% of GDP. It is 92%. Debate over.

The Fund acquired a strip of newly issues securities with its excess
cash. The maturities range from 1-15 years. As you can see from the
following the entire $270 billion of new investments was set at one
common rate of 2-7/8%. This is the arithmetic average of all Treasury
maturities beyond four years. What this means is that the TF is immune
from the investment death trap of ZIRP. Consider the first investment of
$14.996 billion with a maturity of one year. The fund gets a return of
2-7/8 on that. The fair market rate was just 25bb. The difference on
this one transaction? It comes to a tidy $395mm. Who would not like a
risk free investment and earn 2-5/8 over market? I would love to buy
into that. But this “special deal” is only available to the TFs. Why is
it that they get such a good return?

-I conclude that the TF is costing us much more than just the payroll
taxes that are collected. To get a real sense of the cost you have to
add in the interest. Our economy has to pay that as well. The total
interest tab in 2010 will be ~$118 billion. The average yield on the
portfolio is 4.7%. The recent fair market rate on an eight-year average
life Treasury investment would be about 2.2%. The Fund is enjoying an
above market yield of 2.5% currently. That comes to $63 billion a year.
The formula that sets the interest rates is now 50 years old. It should
be reviewed. It is no longer a viable methodology. Our short term
financial position is being impaired so that SS can “look better” long
term. We are kidding ourselves.

The flip side of this is that the Fund’s % income is declining even with
the formula that beefs up its results. Look at all the high coupon
stuff that has rolled off. The folks at the TF must be sad to see these
bonds mature. They have been living off of this fat income for years.
Consider the $29.7b of 5.5% bonds the Fund has been holding for
fifteen-years. That money was re-invested at 2-7/8%. The difference over
the next 15 years comes to a whopping $800mm per year or a total loss
of revenue of $11 billion. And that is just one small portion. The bonds
that came due and a graph of the interest rates the fund has realized
in the past:

The Fund has projected that this rate will return to 6% on average. I
don’t think they consulted with Ben Bernanke on this. Ben is going to
keep rates at artificially low levels for years. Even though the Fund
benefits from a dumb 50-year old formula their revenues are going down.
In a few years the numbers will be off “plan” and people will be
scratching their heads wondering why.

The TF receives interest from Treasury in December and June. For June it
was $59B. They will get a similar number in December. So for the full
year % will be $118b. The assets of the Fund will rise in the year by
about $80b. This is the fundamental problem with the Fund. They are
losing money in their operations, but still show a growing surplus due
to interest income. But we know that the interest is (A) declining and
(B) it is artificially supported by a half century old methodology.

In June the Fund took in $56.8 billion in payroll taxes. They paid out
$63.1 billion in benefits (includes $4.4 B of RR benefits). This is the
only number you need to know. On a cash basis the Fund is losing
billions every month. For June it was $6.3b. The interest income that
hides this problem is just noise.

For the record; my numbers for July, August and September. It comes to a
shortfall of $21 for the Q. By way of comparison Q3 2007 was in surplus
by $10.6B. And some say the Fund has not “turned the corner”. Another
thing we are kidding ourselves about.

July: +50.9 (PR), -58.7 (benefits). Net: -7.8B
August: +50.9 (PR), -58.6 (benefits). Net: -7.7B
September: +53 (PR), 58.8 (benefits). Net: -5.8B

More articles from Zero Hedge….

Readers of my articles will recall that I have warned as far back as December 2006, that the global banks will collapse when the Financial Tsunami hits the global economy in 2007. And as they say, the rest is history.
Quantitative Easing (QE I) spearheaded by the Chairman of Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke delayed the inevitable demise of the fiat shadow money banking system slightly over 18 months.

Read more….

The Daily Reckoning

Bad day for stocks, yesterday. A bad day. Not a terrible day. Not a crash day. Just a bad day.

The Dow fell 140 points. This was baaaad…because it shows that the stock market does not really buy Bernanke’s storyline.

You’ll recall that when we left off last week, Ben Bernanke assured the world that while the recovery was not exactly what he had hoped for, he nevertheless had the situation in hand. He said he had the tools necessary to fix the problem and would do whatever was required.

The initial reaction was positive. The Dow rose more than 160 points on Friday. Some analysts thought the market’s downward trend had been broken. But it needed follow-through on Monday. Instead, the market fell.

The fact is, there is no recovery…and no recovery is possible…and investors are beginning to realize it.

Then what is going on? A “Great Recession,” say some analysts. A “depression,” say others.

There is a good article in The Financial Times that helps understand what is really going on. It’s by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart; you’ve heard of them before, dear reader. They are the ones who researched dozens of episodes of financial crisis and sovereign default throughout history.

Today, they write in the FT about what happens after a financial crisis. Well, what do you think? Do you think you get a “recovery”? Do things go back to normal? Is the recession over quickly and painlessly?

Not at all. Instead, there is rarely anything you would recognize as a “recovery.” Things do not go back to normal because they weren’t normal before the crisis. Crises are caused by abnormal conditions – usually too much credit, too much debt, too much spending and too much speculating. Then, when the bubble blows up, it typically takes a long time for the economy to get back on its feet.

Over the following ten years, unemployment usually stays higher than it was before the crisis.

Growth rates are usually lower.

And ten years after a blow-up in real estate house prices are still usually BELOW where they were when the crisis hit.

But what if the feds really get on the ball and try to turn things around? Then, watch out!

We read an article on dying yesterday. Here’s a question for you, dear reader. Would you rather live in a recessionary economy or die in a booming one? We’ll take the recession. Probably most people would. Heck, make it a depression.

There are a lot of illnesses for which there are no cures. Still, people will spend a fortune…and endure unspeakable treatments…in the hopes that they will be the one in a thousand who survives.

So too are people ready to believe that Dr. Bernanke can cure what ails the US economy. We don’t think so. Because we don’t think the economy is “sick.” We think it is healthy…and finally correcting the mistakes of the Bubble Epoque.

Leading economists and the feds have believed, for example, that there was some problem of “liquidity” that was temporarily blocking the flow of cash and credit. They believed the problem could be solved by making more money available. That was why the Fed bought an extra $1.4 trillion of the banking sector’s suspicious “assets.” They wanted to make sure the banks had money to lend.

Well, now the banks have plenty of cash. Businesses too have record holdings of cash. Even households are rebuilding their cash accounts.

But who’s borrowing? Who’s spending? Who’s buying new houses, for example? (New house sales are currently taking place at the slowest rate ever measured.)

CNN: “Credit if finally available, but no one wants it.”

And more thoughts…

Why don’t people borrow?

Because it’s not a liquidity problem. It’s a debt problem. A solvency problem. And it won’t go away by making more cash and credit available. Instead, all those bad decisions, bad loans, and bad investments have to be cleaned up. And that takes time. And while the economy is de- leveraging, people are becoming more cautious…more risk-averse…more modest in their expectations.

What do Rogoff and Reinhart say about governments’ efforts to fix these problems? What does history show?

They say the feds often make the situation worse.

Not only do governments typically pour bad money after good, they also disrupt the process of correction. Insolvent banks are kept alive. Big businesses that ought to go broke and be sold off are instead propped up…the lights are kept on by government subsidies, preventing new competitors from occupying the space. Consumers and investors keep waiting for the promised “recovery”…for the cure…for the fix. Instead of quickly adjusting to the new circumstances, they delay…they hesitate…they postpone unpleasant changes.

They might quickly sell a house at a loss, for example. They could then go on with their lives. But when they hear the feds tell them they have a new program in the works…or a new stimulus bill in Congress…or new action by the Fed…what are they supposed to think?

“Maybe I should wait and see if this new effort does the trick…” they say to themselves. “I’ll feel like a real fool if I sell now and then the feds get a new bull market going.” “Maybe I should wait before accepting a job at a lower salary; it says in the paper that the economy should recover by summer…”

The economic setbacks of the 19th century were sharp, but fairly short, affairs. The contribution of modern economics has been to stretch them out and make them worse.

*** How about China? Won’t growth in China and the other BRICs lead the whole world out of its funk?

We wouldn’t count on it.

First, the Chinese economy has been growing at near double-digit rates for the last ten years. It didn’t stop the crisis and so far it hasn’t helped the developed nations – at least the US – get out of it.

More important, China is probably getting itself into a big mess too. All we know is what we read in the paper on the subject. But what we read is that the spectacular growth China has enjoyed so far was made possible by freeing the private sector. But now the Chinese government is muscling the entrepreneurs out of the way.

“Now…it is state-run Chinese companies that are on the march,” says The New York Times.

Railroads, mining, airlines, manufacturing, hotels, yogurt… The Chinese government either owns it, controls it, or invests in it.

And if you think private investors make mistakes, you should see what the government does!

A Daily Reckoning dictum: people make mistakes all the time; but if you want to make a real mess of things, you need taxpayer support.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• We Expect No Recovery from the Economy
• Feds See Every Emergency as an Opportunity
• Investors Are Betting On Recovery
• Is Inflation Necessary for Recovery and Growth in the United States?
• The Return of the Cattle Market

More articles from The Daily Reckoning….

Zero Hedge

As part of the Fed’s latest QE iteration, it has already been made clear that despite initial disclosures that the Fed would stay in the 2-10 Year bound of Treasurys, Ben Bernanke is now also gobbling up the very long end of the curve. For all those who are, therefore, still confused why bonds continue to surge to record levels, don’t be: when there is a guaranteed bidder just below you in the face of the Fed, and who you can turn around and sell to at will, there is no pricing risk. The problem, from a bigger stand point, is what happens when the Fed is actively buying up 30 Year bonds with impunity and the much desired (by the Fed) inflation still does not appear? Well, the Fed then, in Michael Pento’s opinion, will begin to purchase stocks and real estate. And as all those who enjoy comparing the US to Japan can attest, outright purchases of securities by the Japanese government is a long-honored tradition in the ongoing fight with deflation in Japan. However, and as the recent BOJ (lack of) intervention demonstrated, Japan never could do anything with the required resolve, and bidding up one stock here and there would never achieve anything. Which is why in this interview with Eric King, Michael Pento makes the case that as opposed to the occasional market intervention via the President’s Working Group, Bernanke will soon make stock purchases an outright policy of the Federal Reserve as its last ditch attempt to engender inflation before the hundreds of billions of Commercial Real Estate and other bank debt start maturing in 2011/2012. Bernanke is running out of time and he knows it. And once the Fed becomes the bidder of last resort in stocks, all bets are off, as the Central Bank will become the defacto only market in virtually every risky category. And the only safe vehicle, once the market then begins to price in Fed driven asset-price hyperinflation, will be gold.

Pento also provides some perspectives on the Fed’s balance sheet, which he anticipates will expand in a “great fashion”, but a much bigger concern to the recent Euro Pacific Capital addition, is the possible surge in M2: “That base money can expand, M2 which is currently running around 8.5 trillion all the way up to nearly 25 to 30 trillion dollars of money supply and that’s enough obviously to send prices through the roof.” All Bernanke needs to do is light the “alternative asset purchasing” match and all those who wonder what left field hyperinflation could come out of, will get their answer.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Pento interview without a requisite smack-down, in this case of Dennis Gartman, whose call to sell gold denominated in euros at the very bottom of the recent gold correction needs no further commentary: EUR-denom gold has jumped well over 10% since Gartman said to get out. Pento adds the following: “There is so much misinformation out there, Dennis Gartman was out there saying gold has lost its inflation hedging properties: this is just ludicrous and insane. I can tell you that gold will never lose its inflation lure, and that’s precisely why I’ve stepped up my purchases of gold., I see what the monetary base is doing, I can clearly see Bernanke’s next step to vastly increase the size of the balance sheet and the monetary base. So for me, it’s 100% an inflation hedge.”

Pento also goes into explaining why housing is facing a “deflationary depression,” and a further collapse in pricing, why inflation benefits only those closest to the money, i.e., the banks and the military complex, why it destroys the middle class (we are sure Buffett ca. 2003 could say something about that too… the current, far more senile and captured Uncle Warren, not so much), the impact on discretionary purchases, on unemployment, real incomes, and all other items which tend to “follow the money.”

Lastly, Pento concludes with an analysis of what would have happened had the government allowed the deflationary depression to occur two years ago, without the tens of trillions in bank bailouts. We protracted, and elongated the depression. But instead of having the benefit of falling prices, you have rising prices.” And if Pento is right, the price rise has only just begun.

Full King World News interview here.

More articles from Zero Hedge….

Even though the overnight interest rate has been stuck near zero for 20 months, are there options available to the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury to bring longer-term yields down further? I have been looking into this question with Cynthia Wu, an extremely talented UCSD graduate student. We present our findings in a new research paper, some of whose results I summarize here.

Our starting point was a framework developed by Vayanos and Vila (2009), who interpret the term structure of interest rates as arising from the behavior of risk-averse arbitrageurs. This model is one way to capture formally the portfolio balance channel that Fed Chairman Bernanke indicated is central to the Fed’s understanding of how nonstandard monetary operations might affect the economy. Vayanos and Vila’s framework has previously been applied to our question by Greenwood and Vayanos (2010) and Doh (2010). One of our contributions is to develop specific measures of how the available supplies of Treasury securities of different maturities might be expected to influence the pricing of level, slope, and curvature risk of the term structure. Although I began as a skeptic of the claim that bond supplies would make much difference, we found pretty strong evidence that historically they have. For example, we found that over the 1990-2007 period, we could predict the excess return from holding a 2-year bond over a 1-year bond with an R² of 71% on the basis of the level, slope, and curvature of the yield curve along with our 3 Treasury supply factors.

One of the challenges plaguing this kind of research is the problem of endogeneity. There may be a correlation between bond supplies and interest rates, but is that because bond supplies affect interest rates, or because the Treasury or the Fed are responding to interest rates in deciding which maturities of Treasury securities to sell or buy? Our solution to this problem is to pose the empirical question in terms of a conditional forecast. Suppose you already knew today’s level, slope, and curvature of the term structure of interest rates, and in addition to those values, I tell you today’s 3 Treasury supply factors. How would the latter cause you to change your forecast of next month’s interest rate for any given maturity? Our finding is that the Treasury factors make a statistically significant contribution across the yield curve.

We can summarize the implications of that forecast in terms of the following scenario. Suppose that the Federal Reserve were to sell off all its Treasury securities of less than one-year maturity, and use the proceeds to buy up all the longer term Treasury debt it could. For example, in December of 2006, this would have required selling off about $400 B in bills and notes or bonds with less than one year remaining, with which the Fed could have effectively retired all Treasury debt beyond 10 years. The figure below summarizes the implied average change in forecast for the 1990-2007 period as a result of this change for interest rates of various maturities. Yields on maturities longer than 2-1/2 years would fall, with those at the long end decreasing by up to 17 basis points. Yields on the shortest maturities would increase by almost as much. While our estimates imply that the Fed could make a modest change in the slope of the yield curve, it would not make any difference for the average level of interest rates.

Predicted change in next months yields (quoted in annual percentage points) as a function of weeks to maturity in response to Fed converting all its short-term holdings into longest available maturities, average values over 1990-2007. Source Hamilton and Wu (2010).

We then extended the framework to the case when, as at present, short-term interest rates are as low as they could go. Even though short term interest rates have been near zero since the end of 2008, longer term yields have continued to vary from week to week, as shown in the solid lines in the graph below. Our interpretation is that these fluctuations in longer-term yields come from investors’ beliefs that short-term interest rates are not going to be stuck at zero forever. We suppose that investors attach a probability to escaping from the zero lower bound at various future dates, and that, when we do, short-term rates and the rest of the yield curve will revert to a dynamic behavior similar to that exhibited prior to 2007.

Actual (solid) and predicted (dashed) behavior of selected interest rates, weekly from March 7, 2009 to August 10, 2010. Rates shown (in order from top to bottom) are the 30 year, 5 year, 1 year, and 3 month.

We were then able to describe interest rate dynamics since the beginning of 2009 in terms of the historically estimated parameters along with three new coefficients, which correspond to the average short-term interest rate as long as we’re stuck at the zero lower bound, the average new short-term interest rate once we escape from the zero lower bound, and a fixed probability of escaping in any given week. The red dashed lines in the figure above represent the predicted values from this model. This simple framework seems to do a pretty reasonable job of explaining interest rate movements over the past couple of years.

Moreover, the framework gives us the information we need to assess the effects of nonstandard open market operations under a zero-lower-bound regime. The figure below shows how our model implies that the forecasting relation described above would be different under the zero lower bound. The experiment here is the same as before– the Fed sells off all its short-term Treasury holdings and buys an equivalent amount of long-term debt. However, under the zero lower bound, the effect on short-term interest rates all but disappears as a consequence of investors’ beliefs that near-zero short-term interest rates are likely to persist for some time. Quantitative easing– buying the longer-term securities with newly created interest-bearing reserves– would have the same effect in our framework.

Predicted change in next months yields (quoted in annual percentage points) as a function of weeks to maturity in response to Fed converting all its short-term holdings into longest available maturities. Solid line: predicted response over 1990-2007. Dashed line: predicted response in 2009-2010. Source Hamilton and Wu (2010).

Hence our estimates imply that whereas an asset swap by the Fed could not reduce interest rates in normal times, under the present situation, it would succeed in driving overall interest rates lower. To take an illustration, the Fed’s combined $1.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities plus $300 B in new longer term Treasury purchases might have succeeded in driving 10-year yields 50 basis points lower than they would have otherwise been.

Although our estimates imply that the Fed could do more than it already has, in many ways the U.S. Treasury is the more natural institution to implement such a policy. According to the theoretical framework that motivated our measures of the Treasury risk factors, the average slope of the yield curve arises from the preference of the U.S. Treasury for doing much of its borrowing with longer term debt. For reasons presumably having to do with management of fiscal risks, the Treasury is willing to pay a premium to arbitrageurs for the ability to lock in a long-term borrowing cost. If the Treasury has good reasons to avoid this kind of interest-rate risk, it is not clear why the Federal Reserve should want to absorb it.

But, according to our estimates, if the Fed wanted to absorb more of this risk, it could reduce the slope of the yield curve further by doing so.

The full paper is available here.

Read more….