Big Money Selling Stocks Since Mid-March

The volume indicator shown here (circled, lower panel) shows that the big money has been selling stocks since the middle of March. The last time we saw a sell-off of this magnitude, Bernanke responded the following day with a promise of more monetization of the debt (via John Hilsenrath at the WSJ). He purchased $44 billion of U.S. debt during the month of March.

The Nightmare After Christmas

By Detlev Schlichter of The Cobden Center

The pathetic state of the global financial system was again on display this week. Stocks around the world go up when a major central bank pumps money into the financial system. They go down when the flow of money slows and when the intoxicating influence of the latest money injection wears off. Can anybody really take this seriously?
On Tuesday, the prospect of another gigantic cash infusion from the ECB’s printing press into Europe’s banking sector, which is in large part terminally ill but institutionally protected from dying, was enough to trigger the established Pavlovian reflexes among portfolio managers and traders.
None of this has anything to do with capitalism properly understood. None of this has anything to do with efficient capital allocation, with channelling savings into productive capital, or with evaluating entrepreneurship and rewarding innovation. This is the make-believe, get-rich-quick (or, increasingly, pretend-you-are-still-rich) world of state-managed fiat-money-socialism. The free market is dead. We just pretend it is still alive.
There are, of course those who are still under the illusion that this can go on forever. Or even that what we need is some shock-and-awe Über-money injection that will finally put an end to all that unhelpful worrying about excessive debt levels and overstretched balance sheets. Let’s print ourselves a merry little recovery.
How did Mr. Bernanke, the United States’ money-printer-in-chief put it in 2002? “Under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending…” (Italics mine.)
Well, I think governments and central banks will get even more determined in 2012. And it is going to end in a proper disaster.
Lender of all resorts
Last week in one of their articles on the euro-mess, the Wall Street Journal Europe repeated a widely shared myth about the ECB: “With Germany’s backing, the ECB has so far refused to become a lender of last resort, …” This is, of course, nonsense. Even the laziest of 2011 year-end reviews will show that the ECB is precisely that: A committed funder of states and banks. Like all other central banks, the ECB has one overriding objective: to create a constant flow of new fiat money and thus cheap credit to an overstretched banking sector and an out-of-control welfare state that can no longer be funded by the private sector. That is what the ECB’s role is. The ECB is lender of last resort, first resort, and soon every resort.
Let’s look at the facts. The ECB started 2011 with record low policy rates. In the spring it thought it appropriate to consider an exit strategy. The ECB conducted a number of moderate rate hikes that have by now all been reversed. By the beginning of 2012 the ECB’s policy rates are again where they were at the beginning of 2011, at record low levels.
So why was the springtime attempt at “rate normalization” aborted? Because of deflationary risks? Hardly. Inflation is at 3 percent and thus not only higher than at the start of the year but also above the ECB’s official target.
The reason was simply this: states and banks needed a lender of last resort. The private market had lost confidence in the ability (willingness?) of certain euro-zone governments to ever repay their massive and constantly growing debt load. Certain states were thus cut off from cheap funding. The resulting re-pricing of sovereign bonds hit the banks and made it more challenging for them to finance their excessive balance sheets with money from their usual sources, not least U.S. money market funds.
So, in true lender-of-last resort fashion, the ECB had to conduct a U-turn and put those printing presses into high gear to fund states and banks at more convenient rates. While in a free market, lending rates are the result of the bargaining between lenders and borrowers, in the state-managed fiat money system, politicians and bureaucrats define what constitutes “sustainable” and “appropriate” interest rates for states and banks. The central bank has to deliver.
The ECB has not only helped with lower rates. Its balance sheet has expanded over the year by at least €490 billion, and is thus 24% larger than at the start of the year. This does not even include this week’s cash binge. The ECB is funding ever more European banks and is accepting weaker collateral against its loans. Many of these banks would be bust by now were it not for the constant subsidy of cheap and unlimited ECB credit. If that does not define a lender of last resort, what does?
And as I pointed out recently, the ECB’s self-imposed limit of €20 billion in weekly government bond purchases (an exercise in market manipulation and subsidization of spendthrift governments but shamelessly masked as an operation to allow for smooth transmission of monetary policy) is hardly a severe restriction. It would allow the ECB to expand its balance sheet by another €1 trillion a year. (The ECB is presently keeping its bond purchases well below €20 billion per week.)
Deflation? What deflation?
It is noteworthy that there still seems to be a widespread belief that all this money-printing will not lead to higher inflation because of the offsetting deflationary forces emanating from private bank deleveraging and fiscal austerity.
This is an argument I came across a lot when I had the chance in recent weeks to present the ideas behind my book to investors and hedge fund managers in London, Edinburgh and Milan. Indeed, even some of the people who share my outlook about the endgame of the fiat money system do believe that we could go through a period of falling prices first, at least for certain financial assets and real estate, before central bankers open the flood-gates completely and implement the type of no holds barred policy I mentioned above. Then, and only then will we see a dramatic rise in inflation expectations, a rise in money velocity and a sharp rise in official inflation readings.
Maybe. But I don’t think so. I consider it more likely that we go straight to higher inflation.
The deleveraging in the banking sector is the equivalent of austerity in the public sector: it is an idea. A promise. The reflationary policy of the central bank is a fact. And that policy actively works against private bank deleveraging and public sector debt reduction.
Consider this: The present credit crisis started in 2007. Yet, none of the major economies registered deflation. All are experiencing inflation, often above target levels and often rising. In the euro-area, over the past twelve months, the official inflation rate increased from 2 percent to 3 percent.
From the start of 2011 to the beginning of this month, the U.S. Federal Reserve boosted the monetary base by USD 560 billion, or 27 percent. So far this year, M1 increased by 17.5 percent and M2 by 9.5 percent.
Below is the so-called “true money supply” for the U.S. calculated by the Mises Institute.

As the Mises-Institute’s Doug French pointed out, total assets held by the six biggest banks in the U.S. increased by 39% over the past 5 years. Maybe this is not surprising given that in our brave new world of limitless fiat money, credit contraction is strictly verboten.
In the UK the official inflation reading is at around 5 percent, but nevertheless in October the Bank of England embarked on another round of “quantitative easing”. It has so far expanded its balance sheet by another £50 billion in not even three months, which constitutes balance sheet growth of about 20 percent.
What we have experienced in the UK in 2011 provides a good forecast in my view for the entire Western world for 2012: rising unemployment, weak or no growth, failure of the government to rein in spending, growing public debt, further expansion of the central bank’s balance sheet, rising inflation.
Death of a safe haven
And what about Switzerland? Here the central bank expanded its balance sheet by 40 percent over just the first three quarters of the year, and almost tripled the monetary base over the same period of time. Most of this even occurred before the 6^th of September, the day on which Mr. Hildebrand, the President of the Swiss National Bank, told the world and his fellow Swiss countrymen and women that the whole safe-haven idea was rubbish and that Switzerland was now joining the global fiat money race to the bottom.
Deflation has become the bogeyman of the policy establishment. It must be avoided at all cost! Of course for most of us regular folks deflation would simply mean a tendency toward lower prices. It would mean that the capacity of the capitalist economy to increase the productivity of labour through the accumulation of capital and to thus make things more affordable over time (a true measure of rising general wealth) would accurately be reflected in falling nominal prices. The purchasing power of money would increase over time. This, however, would require a form of hard and apolitical money. Instead we are constantly told that our economy needs never-ending monetary debasement in order to function properly. We are constantly told to fear nothing more than deflation, which can only be averted by a determined government and a determined central bank. And the never-ending supply of new fiat money.
Appropriately, there is no talk of exit strategies any longer.
Given the size of the already accumulated imbalances I think a stop to this madness of fiat money creation would be painful at first but hugely beneficial in the long run. I am the last to say that no risk of a very painful deflationary correction exists. But a correction is now unavoidable in any case, and every other policy option will make the endgame only worse. Even if I am wrong on the near-term outlook on inflation and even if all this money-printing does not lead to higher inflation readings imminently, it will still be a hugely disruptive policy. Money injections obstruct the dissolution of imbalances and invariably add new imbalances to the economy, including new debt and capital misallocations, that will make even more aggressive money printing necessary in the future.
The nationalization of money and credit
Herein lies a fundamental contradiction in our present system: The desire for constant inflation and constant credit expansion requires that the banks be shielded from the effects of their own business errors. Allowing capitalism’s most efficient regulators, profit and loss, to do the regulating, would mean that banks could face the risk of bankruptcy – this is, of course, the ultimate disciplinary force in capitalism. This could then lead to balance sheet correction and thus periods of deflation. Ergo, banks cannot be capitalist enterprises at full risk of bankruptcy as long as constant credit growth and inflation are the overriding policy goals. The constant growth of the banking sector must be guaranteed by the state through the unlimited provision of bank reserves from a lender-of-last resort central bank.
That banks get ever bigger, that they routinely hand out multi-million dollar bonuses, and that they frequently get bailed out, is not a result of the greed of the bankers – a stupid explanation anyway, only satisfactory to the intellectually challenged and perennially envious – but is integral to the fiat money system.
Banking under state protection ultimately means banking under state control. In the end it means state banking. And this is where we are going.
Last week the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England announced plans to tighten the control over the balance sheet management and the risk-taking of private banks. This is just the beginning, believe me. The nationalization of money and credit will intensify in 2012 and beyond. More regulation, more restriction, more control. Not only in defence of the bankrupt banks but also the bankrupt state. We will see curbs on trading, short-selling restrictions and various forms of capital controls.
A system of state fiat money is incompatible with capitalism. As the end of the present fiat money system is fast approaching the political class and the policy bureaucracy will try and defend it with everything at their disposal. For the foreseeable future, capitalism will, sadly, be the loser.
The conclusion from everything we have seen in 2011 is unquestionably that the global monetary system is on thin ice. Whether the house of cards will come tumbling down in 2012 nobody can say. When concerns about the fundability of the state and the soundness of fiat money, fully justified albeit still strangely subdued, finally lead to demands for higher risk premiums, upward pressure on interest rates will build. This will threaten the overextended credit edifice and will probably be countered with more aggressive central bank intervention. That is when it will get really interesting.
We live in dangerous times. Stay safe and enjoy the holidays.
In the meantime, the debasement of paper money continues.

Bernanke's Downer Day

Bernanke: Calamity This Way Comes

"the finances of the federal government will spiral out of control in coming decades, risking severe economic and financial damage" -- Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank

Here is the market response. It appears the financial markets weren't very enthusiastic about his comments!

Wall St Loves Bernanke's Non-Answer

It seems that Wall St. is convinced that the Fed will do something at the September FOMC meeting. They loved Bernanke's non-answer answer, and are convinced that more Fed support is just around the corner.

GDP Weakness Edges U.S. Closer to Recession

Europe is literally right on the edge of recession, with GDP barely in the positive, and a likely next-month revision that will push them over the edge.

Here from Zero Hedge on US GDP:
The first revision to Q1 GDP printed at 1.0%, down from the preliminary Q2 GDP print of 1.3%, and as expected was worse than Wall Street consensus of -1.1%, although it was certainly not as bad as the miss to the preliminary number.

Stocks have dipped into the red as a result, but only moderately.

Next up: Ben Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech in just over an hour.

"Bubbles" Disappoints! No QE3! Wall Street Throws a Tantrum!

Wall Street is throwing a temper tantrum! After being up 200 points today, stocks just hit the flat line!

S&P 500 Futures Rally 70 Points, Then Fizzle and Go Red Again

That was some rally, no doubt taking out many shorts, but alas, the fundamental weakness in the world economy bears sway, and stocks are negative again. That was a powerful rally, suggesting that Wall Street perceives that the market is oversold, but the continuing weak data make it difficult to sustain any rally.

The Fed is likely to announce a new program of monetary inflation today or tomorrow. If they announce it today, it will be a sign of how urgently "Bubbles" Bernanke perceives the crisis to be. Even if they wait until tomorrow, it is still a sign of desperation.

Ultimately and eventually, they will collapse the entire financial system in their irresponsible hubris. Bernanke himself has stated that his policies are "unprecedented measures"; in other words, he hasn't the slightest idea what effect they will have in this complex and interconnected world. But like a foolishly arrogant teenager with a chemistry set, he won't stop until he blows up the neighborhood. That is his destiny!

Trouble this way comes! Big trouble!

QE3 Guaranteed to Fail

by John Defeo
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Whether or not the Federal Reserve opts to make more large-scale asset purchases (colloquially referred to as "QE3") remains to be seen -- but I suspect that Ben Bernanke himself is beginning to realize that QE3 is guaranteed to fail.
Bernanke told Congress on Wednesday that the Fed is ready to provide additional monetary stimulus should the U.S. see adverse economic developments. On Thursday, Bernanke qualified his statement, saying that the Fed is "not prepared at this point to take further action."
Let's analyze the situation:

So What Exactly is Quantitative Easing, Anyway?

Quantitative easing is when the United States' central bank, the Federal Reserve, buys U.S. Treasury bonds.

• Treasury bonds are a future obligation of the United States, paid out with Federal Reserve notes (dollars).
• Federal Reserve notes are a current obligation of the United States, redeemable for goods and services.

If the Federal Reserve purchases bonds directly from the United States Treasury, they are exchanging dollars (current obligations) for future obligations. This is inflationary if the amount of obligations (money) is increasing faster that the amount of capital (goods, services, products and ideas).
However -- the Federal Reserve doesn't buy bonds from the Treasury, it buys them from "primary dealers." Primary dealers are a network of banks (including Goldman Sachs(GS), JPMorgan Chase(JPM) and Citigroup(C)) that are obligated to buy bonds from the U.S. and serve as a trading partner with the Federal Reserve.
The triangular relationship between the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve and major banks can be a head-scratcher -- but make no mistake, this relationship is making some people rich (we'll touch on this point later).

Criteria for the [Long Term] Success of Quantitative Easing

1. If banks are facing a liquidity crisis -- and because of this fact -- are unwilling to lend to qualified borrowers.
2. If qualified borrowers want to borrow money -- and most importantly, are willing to invest in entrepreneurial ideas that will provide a return on invested capital.

Quantitative easing could hypothetically improve the U.S. economy, for the long term, if both of the above criteria are met. Unfortunately, this is not the reality of our situation.
Thanks to taxpayer-funded bailouts and the first two rounds of quantitative easing, major U.S. banks are adequately reserved (in other words, they are liquid). The problem lies in point No. 2: Statements from major banks suggests a drought of qualified borrowers.
Creditworthy individuals (however small this segment of the population might be) are not borrowing. We can blame the uncertainty of tax policies, the staggering unemployment figures or the overall fragility of the economy. But at the end of the day, creditworthy individuals aren't borrowing.
The banks don't need further reserves -- the people need confidence. And confidence comes from the leadership, foresight and conviction from our elected officials, not the Federal Reserve.

Is Quantitative Easing Helping Anyone?

Yes, unfortunately.
Quantitative easing is providing major banks with arbitrage opportunities (risk-free trading profits). Goldman Sachs can buy a bond from the Treasury on Monday and sell it to the Federal Reserve on Tuesday (at a profit) -- the blog ZeroHedge has named this game "Flip That Bond."
Quantitative easing is also helping elected officials shirk their duties to the American public -- in a sense, enabling politicians to spend money the country does not have (or make good on promises that should be broken). Forbes' William Baldwin illustrates this concept beautifully.
"The government wants to spend $1,000 it doesn't have. So it sells a bond. The [ultimate] buyer is the Federal Reserve. The Fed pays for the bond with some folding money. The Treasury spends the $1,000 on farm subsidies or whatever.
The Fed makes a show of treating the $1,000 bond as an investment. It collects $40 in interest from the Treasury. But this is a charade. The Fed declares the $40 (after some overhead costs) as profit and sends the profit right back to Treasury. In reality, the interest payment never left the Treasury building.
When the dust settles, this is what has happened. The farmer has $1,000 of cash. The government did not get this cash by collecting taxes. It got the cash by creating it."

Has Quantitative Easing Ever Been Tried Before? If So, Has It Worked?

Yes -- and to the second question, I don't see any evidence it has worked.
In 1961, the Fed embarked on a similar strategy known as "Operation Twist." But Twist was dismissed as a failure by most, while others blamed the lack of efficacy on the small scale of the operation.
Quantitative easing was attempted again -- on a larger scale -- by Japan in 2001. More than a decade later, Japan has not escaped its problems, and Masaaki Shirakawa, governor of the Bank of Japan, stated that if "short-term stimulative policy measures" are the only cure, then "[policy makers] face a risk of writing the wrong policy prescription."
Unfortunately, some prominent U.S. economists (notably, Larry Summers and Paul Krugman) don't view this history as a cautionary tale, instead suggesting that stimulus only fails when enough of it wasn't done. To this point, I wholeheartedly agree with Mike "Mish" Shedlock's statement, "The disgusting state of affairs is that bureaucratic fools in the EU, US and everywhere else, all believe the cure is the same as the disease if only done in big enough size."

What's the Worst Case Scenario for the Economy

The worst-case scenario is that the nation's banks, under political pressure to lend (see Masaaki Shirakawa's statement above), begin making loans to corporations and individuals that are not creditworthy. Of course, this is exactly how the financial crisis came to fruition, and like before, will end in tears for the greater American public.

Is Ben Bernanke the Problem

I do not think Ben Bernanke is evil or stupid (nor do I think he is insane), rather, I prefer to think of him as a kindly-yet-timid doctor prescribing an obese patient antidepressants. The doctor knows that only the patient can solve the patient's problems, but the doctor lacks the courage to tell the patient, "Go on a diet, get some exercise and get the hell out of my office!"
--Written by John DeFeo in New York City

Bernanke's Catastrophe

Interview with Lee Adler of Wall Street Examiner
Introduction by Ilene
Elliott, of PSW’s Stock World Weekly, and I began a series of interviews with Lee Adler, chief editor and market analyst at the Wall Street Examiner, on May 11, 2011. This is part 2. Lee's Wall Street Examiner is a unique, comprehensive investment newsletter that covers subjects such as the Fed’s open market operations, the impact of the Fed and the US Treasury on the markets, the housing market, and investment strategies. We often cite Lee’s analysis in Stock World Weekly and on Phil’s Stock World--his research provides invaluable information for formulating an overall market outlook.
(Here's part 1 of our interview: The Blinking Idiot & the Banking System)

Part 2: Bernankenstein's Monster 

Elliott: How should we invest in this environment - when we take into account the Fed’s huge interference in the markets?
Lee: Think like a criminal. Look, it’s a matter of knowing what the Fed’s next move is going to be, and knowing the investment implications.  You have to stay with the trend until the Fed sends signals that it is going to reverse. We’re at that inflection point. The issue is how much front running will there be? You definitely have to be out of your longs by now. When support fails after having succeeded, succeeded, succeeded, and every other previous retracement has held, then suddenly one doesn’t, it’s a huge signal.
Ilene: If the Fed wants oil and metal to go down, and the dollar to go up, is that saying it wants the stock market to go down as collateral damage? If pattern continues, the stock market will go down with the commodities.

Lee: No, the stock market is the center. Bernanke came out in November, the day they announced QE2, and did an Op-ed in the Washington Post saying exactly what he expected. He’s going to manipulate the stock market higher, and that’s going to create economic confidence and everyone’s going to be happy. His goal was to manipulate the stock market. The collateral damage, the stupidity of their policy, was that they didn’t take into account the inflationary effects on commodities. They kept denying it.  And Bernanke kept saying over and over, well, look the stock market is going up, QE2’s having the desired effect. He was willing to take credit for the stock market going up, but he refused to take responsibility for the same exact move in commodities. It’s the same, they move together. It’s just that one was an intended consequence (stocks going higher), and the other (inflation in commodities) was the unintended consequence. They took credit for the intended consequences, but wouldn’t take responsibility for the unintended consequences.
Ilene: What in the Fed’s creation gives it the power to manipulate the stock market? That wasn’t one of its dual mandates (maximum employment and price stability). Isn’t that beyond its scope?
Lee: Of course, but QE2 was a direct manipulation of the stock market.
Ilene: So the Fed knew the money they gave to the Primary Dealers would end up in the stock market. Do they have an agreement with Goldman Sachs, like “hey we’re going to print you this money and we want you to buy stocks?”

Lee: Look, Brian Sack, the head trader for the Fed, sits down with the Primary Dealer traders every morning before the NY markets open, and they have a conference call. Every morning. The Fed makes no secret of this, it’s all on the NY Fed website, the “Fed points.” They describe the whole thing. They discuss the dealers’ “positions and what their financing needs are”, but that’s code. The Fed decides what it wants, and the PDs execute the Fed’s wishes. So while government securities are usually the Fed’s focus, the dealers can trade whatever they want. Bernanke made it absolutely clear that stocks were his focus in that November 4 editorial in the Washington post.

Ilene: Even though manipulating stocks is not a legitimate focus of the Fed?
Lee: That’s what they get away with. The mainstream views pushing stocks higher as a legitimate policy. People want the stock market higher. But they don’t want to see oil prices over $100 a barrel, and gas prices over $4 a gallon, they don’t want that.

The Fed does not control what the dealers do with the money, they can only make their wishes clear. The Fed can make it difficult for the dealers, and now they are, because they finally got fed up with the commodity speculation. But the Fed does not control what Goldman Sachs does completely. In fact, it might be the other way around. There’s clearly collusion, it’s no secret.

Ilene: Why doesn’t anyone do anything to stop this?
Lee: Well, most of the FOMC members want stock prices higher. They believe the trickle down theory crap. They want to inflate, so it costs less to service our debt. But the kind of inflation we have is devastating. It impoverishes the middle class and makes the middle class unable to pay its debts to the banking system, which is a time bomb in itself.
The banks are not increasing their loss reserves at all. They’re shrinking their reserves so they can show profits when they should be going in the other direction because the ability of the public to service the debt is decreasing.
The Fed gets into these post-hoc crisis management modes where they will make another huge blunder. QE2 was a massive blunder. It did not achieve its desired goal. It got stock prices up but it didn’t get the economy turned around, and it made inflation much worse. They fucked up and the blunder will only be recognized after the fact. Mainstream media won’t get it until after the stock market collapses. By then it’s too late. But the blunder won’t be manifest till stock prices collapse, and then everyone will recognize what a damn idiot Bernanke is.

And now they’re going to sacrifice the stock market, because another problem is that they can’t afford to allow long-term bond yields to go up. The government can’t afford higher interest rates. They will sacrifice the stock market at the alter of the Treasury market. They will do whatever they can to support Treasury prices at high levels. That means they’ll force the liquidation of stocks, and once the wave of liquidation hits the stock market, the knee jerk reaction is for the money to flow towards Treasuries. Someday that’s not going to work, and I think that day may be coming pretty soon.

Ilene: What do you think about Bill Gross shorting Treasuries, is that going to work out for him?
Lee: William the Gross. Watch what he does, not what he says. The guy is a world class card player. For any public pronouncement he makes, generally, you have to consider the opposite. Think like a criminal. He’s the Godfather. When Gross comes on TV, I hear the Godfather music playing in the background. His track record of public pronouncements isn’t very good, yet he consistently makes more money than anyone else trading the bond market, so obviously you can’t be wrong all the time and make money all the time.
Ilene: So he’s front running?
Lee: If he’s making a pronouncement on CNBC, he probably has another reason for saying what’s he’s saying other than what it appears to be. He’s got a direct pipeline to the Fed. The Fed sends these coded messages. It’s not that hard to figure out by watching the data. The massive spike in bank reserve deposits at the Fed, starting right after the January Fed meeting, means something is happening there.
Ilene: You’ve concluded this game is going to stop in June?
Lee: Well, I always figured it would because commodity prices were getting out of control. The more Bernanke denied it, the more troubling it seemed he knew it was. It’s the old “[he] doth protest too much, methinks.”  Every time Bernanke claimed the inflation was transitory, the more clear it became that he knew it was a serious problem. But they didn’t do anything about till recently.
Ilene: So what is going to happen with the stock market? Will it sell off as QE ends? At what point will the Fed start a QE3 to stop the stock market from dropping - would it let stocks drop 10%, 20%...?
Lee: Oh yeah. The Fed’s job one is to preserve the Treasury market. With this enormous mountain of debt which the government is on the hook for, they can’t afford to pay 5% interest, or even 4%. They can’t afford any increase in Treasury yields. So, if necessary, they’re going to force a liquidation of stocks and spark a “flight to safety” panic again, as they did in 2008. Then, they needed to get the yields down, and they were also thinking it would help the housing market.
Ilene: But it didn’t really get to the housing market.

Lee: The problem in the housing market had nothing to do with mortgage rates but they didn’t understand that. It’s amazing how when you put all these smart people together how stupid they can be. It’s the problem with group think. When the FOMC gets together, it’s like having all these geniuses in the room coming up with idiotic decisions. They all have the same motivation - to become the next Fed Chairman. The way to do that is to comply with the mad scientist running the show. Bernanke’s whole life has been an ongoing doctoral dissertation in which he tries one experiment after another, based on the crap he wrote when working on his PhD.
The problem we’re experiencing now is that the system is imploding. It’s a slow motion implosion.
Elliott: When QE2 ends in June, will the pain of that ending be extreme enough cause the Fed to resume some form of QE3?
Lee: Yep. I don’t think it will take long.  We’re in bad shape, as bad as Greece. The only way we can pay our bills is if other countries and investors continue to lend us $100 Billion every month, and that could jump to $150 Billion a month in the summer. So we can’t pay our bills unless people lend us more money. That’s not paying bills. That’s creating a bigger problem.

Bernanke Is Making Things Worse

Elliott, writer of PSW’s Stock World Weekly, and I recently began a series of interviews with Lee Adler, chief editor and market analyst at the Wall Street Examiner. (The interview was on May 11, 2011.) The Wall Street Examiner is a unique and very comprehensive investment newsletter. Lee Adler’s work covers subjects such as the Fed’s open market operations, the impact of the Fed and the US Treasury on the markets, the housing market, and investment strategies. We often cite Lee’s analysis in Stock World Weekly and on Phil’s Stock World -- his research into the Fed’s and the Treasury’s activities – the money flows – provides invaluable information for formulating an overall market outlook. 

Part 1: A Blinking Idiot & the Banking System 

Ilene: Lee, I’ve gathered from reading your material lately that you think it’s time to be out of speculative trades, such as oil, now?
Lee: Yes, the Fed is serious about stopping speculation, and they are not waiting till the end of QE2. Bernanke wants to break the back of this thing. So if you want to trade the long side now, you’re playing with fire. The powers that be have put out the message that they won’t keep tolerating speculation in the oil and commodities markets.
Ilene: Because of the inflation that Bernanke denies exists?
Lee: Yes, the inflation is disastrous. They’ve known all along that inflation is real. You know it when you’ve got this situation in Libya with people getting killed. It started with food riots in Tunisia, but then it morphed into something else. People are starving all over the world because of these commodity prices, and the idea that it is not affecting Americans is crap because 80% of the people are affected by gas prices at these levels. They have to cut back on other spending, and the top 10% can’t carry the ball. If you’re spending an extra $100 – $200 to fill up your car and put groceries on the table, that affects your ability to service your debts, and that affects the banking system. This inability to pay back loans is showing up in mortgage delinquencies and credits card delinquencies.
Ilene: You also have written that the Dollar and commodities have an inverse relationship, why is that?
Lee: Because commodities, such as oil, are traded in Dollars. Commodities are basically a cash substitute at this point. The players don’t want to hold Dollars because the Fed is trashing the Dollar. If you’re a trader outside the U.S., and your native currency is the yen, for example, and you want to buy oil or gold futures, you need to sell Dollars in exchange for the gold or oil futures contracts you’re buying. So your action of buying the commodities in Dollars is in effect creating a short position in the Dollar.
So if commodities collapse and you’re forced to sell your positions, you’ll reverse that short position in the Dollar – trading the commodities back for Dollars. That creates demand for the Dollar. That’s why commodities and the Dollar definitely do have an inverse relationship.
With the margin increases that were implemented in the last month or so, the Fed is beginning to reverse the commodities price run up.  This is the precursor to the end of QE2. The Fed is sending warning shots across the bow. After the Jan 26 FOMC meeting, banks’ reserves began to skyrocket. Why did bank reserves suddenly skyrocket? There’s no overt reason. Something was going on behind the scenes.  I think banks and Primary Dealers (PDs) got the back channel message that it’s time to start building reserves because they’re really going to end QE in June – they really, really are. I give it six weeks to two months until the whole thing collapses and they have to start printing money again.
Ilene: Why do commodities and the Dollar have a more persistent relationship than the Dollar and the stock market, for which there is an inverse relationship now, but this is not always the case?
Lee: The Dollar/stock market inverse relationship is a correlation due to a common cause – essentially the actions of the Fed.  It’s not a cause and effect relationship.
Elliott: Will the Fed defend the Dollar?
Lee: They are starting to, but not officially. They’re doing it behind the scenes. That’s my theory. I’m a tinfoil hat guy…. I didn’t start out this way. I arrived at my tinfoil hat after paying careful attention to the data for 8 or 9 years. After a while I realized it’s kabuki theater. 
Elliott: As you say it is kabuki theater, and as Phil says, we don’t care if the markets are rigged, we just need to know HOW the market is rigged so we can place our bets correctly.
Lee: Exactly. All you need to know is what the Fed is doing. That’s my bread and butter. I watch what the Fed is doing every day.  I’m so familiar with the data that stuff jumps out and screams at me. The margin increases were not an accident. They were completely out of character, and they followed Bernanke’s press conference where he claimed he couldn’t stop speculation. He’s so manipulative. He says one thing and does another.
Elliott: But being Chairman of the Fed, doesn’t he have to lie? If he came out and said exactly what he’s planning to do, wouldn’t everyone and his dog get on the right side of the trade?
Lee: That’s what he does though – he lies, but in his backchannel way. He tells the favored groups exactly what he’s going to do. You have to read between the lines. The meeting minutes are pure propaganda. That is how they send coded messages to the market. 
In the last meeting minutes, or maybe the one before, the Fed said that wage increases were to be eradicated. I went ballistic when I saw that.
Elliott: Especially because they create all this inflation, and it trickles it’s way down. This is trickle down inflation. It’s gotten to the point where the people trying to make a living and ultimately buy things are being told that although prices are going up, we can’t allow you to earn anymore money…
Lee: It’s a moral outrage and a terrible policy. But that’s what they want. Their purpose is to keep the bankers in business. The Fed serves the banking system. That’s why it’s there, to make sure the banking system is profitable.
Ilene: So they are accomplishing their goal.
Lee: For the time being. In the end they cannot fulfill their purpose because the banking system is dead. This is Frankenstein’s monster. This is another one of Bernanke’s economic science experiments, Dr. Bernankenstein.  And the result of his policies is bernankicide – the financial genocide of the elderly in America.
Elliott: Then if Dr. Bernanke is Dr. Frankenstein, then what exactly is his monster?
Ilene: The banking system?
Lee: Yes, it’s got these screws coming out of its head, and stitches across its forehead. It’s the walking dead. The banks don’t make any money, the only way they appear to make money is by lying about it.
Ilene: But the people running the banks make money.
Lee: It’s a criminal syndicate for god’s sake.

Stocks Lose All Gains

I haven't yet heard about Bernanke's speech this afternoon, but it appears that it has sent stocks tumbling. After being up 60-70 points the entire day, stocks have lost all gains and are back to flat for the day.

by Axel Merk at FT.com:



Imagine a country that spends and prints trillions to patch up any problem.

Now imagine another country where there is no central Treasury, meaning that bail-outs are less easy, and which has a central bank that has mopped up liquidity over the past year, rather than engage in quantitative easing.

Why does it surprise anyone that the latter, the eurozone, has a stronger currency than the former, the US? Because of peripheral countries’ debt refinancing issues? And the potential for contagion? These are real and serious issues, but in our assessment, they should be primarily priced into the spreads of eurozone bonds, not the euro itself.

Think of it this way: in the US, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has testified that going off the gold standard during the Great Depression helped the US recover faster than other countries. Fast-forward to today: we believe Bernanke embraces a weaker currency as a monetary policy tool to help address the current state of the US economy. What many overlook is that someone must be on the other side of that trade: today it is the eurozone, which is experiencing a strong currency, despite the many challenges in the 17-nation bloc.

A year ago, the euro appeared to be the only asset traded as a hedge against, or to profit from, all things wrong in the eurozone. This was partly driven by liquidity, because it is easier to sell the euro than to short debt of peripheral eurozone countries; and as the trade worked, others piled in. As the euro approached lows of $1.18 against the dollar, the trade was no longer a “safe” one-way bet and traders had to look elsewhere. As a result, the euro is now substantially stronger, yet peripheral bond debt is much weaker.

The one language policymakers understand is that of the bond market. A “wonderful dialogue” has been playing out, encouraging policymakers to engage in real reform. Often minority governments have made extremely tough decisions. Ultimately, it us up to each country to implement their respective reforms; political realities will cause many to fall short of promises, resulting in more bond market “encouragement”. Policymakers hate this dialogue, of course, but must respect it.

Any country may default on its debt. The problem is that it may be impossible to receive another loan, at least at palatable financing costs. Any country considering a default must be willing and able to absorb the consequences, which is an overnight eradication of the primary deficit.

That’s why it is in Greece’s interest to postpone any debt restructuring until more reform has been implemented.

The risk/reward consideration of a default is likely to be more favourable a few years from now. The banking system has already had time to prepare for a Greek default, among others, unloading securities to the European Central Bank. Politics may cause an earlier default, but Greece would be shooting itself in the foot, as an important incentive for further reform through the carrot and stick approach of the European Union and International Monetary Fund is taken away. Moreover, why refuse the easy money?

Debt reduction in principle is certainly possible. Belgium in the 1990s had a debt to gross domestic product ratio of about 130 per cent and has since taken it down to about 98 per cent. The Belgium caretaker government appears easily capable of continuing the country’s prudent fiscal path.

Portugal’s main challenge is that it is a small country with a weak government, but it is capable of living up to its commitments.

Spain is a major country that has had a housing bust – nothing new in modern history. Given Spain’s low total debt to GDP and an assertive approach to overhauling its banking system, we sometimes compare Spain to Finland. In the early 1990s, Finland had a housing bust, as trade with the Soviet Union ended, followed by a banking system implosion and soaring unemployment. Both Finland then and Spain now have low debt-to-GDP ratios. It may be easier to implement reform in Finland (and Finland had a free-floating currency), but Spain has a real economy and ample resources.

Ireland is trickier, because a default may be an attractive political consideration. However, we would be more concerned about fallout to sterling, given the exposure of the British banking system, than the euro.

In the US, the day investors come to accept the reality that inflation, rather than fiscal discipline, is the path of least political resistance may be the day the bond market won’t be as forgiving. Unlike the eurozone, where consumers stopped spending and started saving a decade ago, the highly indebted US consumer may not be able to stomach higher interest rates. The large US current account deficit also makes the dollar more vulnerable to a misbehaving bond market than the eurozone.

In the medium term, we are far more concerned about risks to the US dollar than those posed by the Greek drama to the euro.

Axel Merk is president and chief investment officer of Merk Investments

Why the Fed Must Cut Short It's QE2 Inflation Gamble

from Zero Hedge:

The Federal Reserve has lost all credibility on Wall Street, and most of the American public with the absolute refusal to recognize the dire effects on asset prices that QE2 has created. But the refusal is part of the problem. It reinforces the wide spread belief of investors that the Fed is out of touch with reality, and that they sit in their Ivory Tower implementing an exceedingly loose monetary policy, with the stated goal of inflating asset prices.

The Fed has refused to even acknowledge the possibility (rather than the indisputable facts) that not only have they inflated selected asset prices like S&P 500, the Dow indexes, but they also have inflated asset prices like food, energy, and clothing which would actually hurt the economy and consumers (See Chart).

Needed – Housing and Wage Inflation

Remember, overall inflation is actually being artificially under-reported by the numbers because housing and wages are not inflating. These are the two actual groups of assets that Americans in reality need the Fed to inflate. But Fed’s policies have been unable to help and seem to essentially be hurting the housing sector, as higher everyday living costs with stagnant wages tend to reduce disposable income and resources that could be otherwise allocated to saving towards a down payment to purchase a house, improving the real estate sector of the economy.

Inflation Exported Would Come Back To Haunt 

Furthermore, since most of these asset prices are priced in dollar, the fed has exported dire and extreme inflationary pressures on an already precariously balanced inflationary picture in the emerging market economies from China to India.

It is the proverbial throwing of jet fuel on a barbeque for most of the economies. Yes, Bernanke is right that these countries had inflationary problems before based upon their undervaluing currencies. Nevertheless, this is how their economies have been set up in the global trade role that has been 30 years in the making.

These countries just couldn`t revalue their currencies near enough to still keep their role as exporting, cheap labor manufacturers, without sending the entire region into a 10-year depression which would bring the entire world into a depression not seen since the Great Depression.

Unmanageable Inflation Elsewhere

Given the fact that these manufacturing exporting countries cannot meaningfully revalue their currencies, they are basically stuck with an endemic higher level of inflation compared with the developed economies, but it is still manageable. Now, with the US`s persistently loose monetary policies exacerbated by QE2, raising input costs for commodities used in abundance by these manufacturing, cheap labor economies like Oil, Copper, Cotton, and Iron Ore (See Chart), these policies are exporting additional inflationary pressures to these developing economies.

This results in making what would be a manageable level of inflation in China of around 3.5 to 4% an unmanageable level of inflation at 5.5 to 6%, and maybe even higher as the full effects of the inflation of commodity asset prices have not yet fully been incorporated and manifested in the Chinese manufacturing economy.

Long Live the Inflation Trade

The other area where Ben Bernanke`s stubbornness of acknowledging the effects of QE2 on food and energy prices, i.e., the rise in prices is due strictly to demand reasons, Middle East tensions, and product shortages and in no part to a loose monetary policy which encourages traders to make the following trade:

1. Loose monetary policy is dollar negative (printing money, currency devaluation, etc). 
2. Commodities like Oil, Gold, Silver, Wheat, Corn, Cotton, Copper are Dollar negative Hedges  
3. Therefore, put on the following trade: Short the dollar, and go long commodities.

This is the famous inflation trade is has been going on and off for the past 10 years by fund managers around the world. This trade has been in the investing 101 handbook for 50 plus years. And the fact that Ben Bernanke never admits to knowing about these trade dynamics in the marketplace, and how his policy initiate of QE2 actually encourages, facilitates and even mandates that fund managers around the world put on this very trade is beyond a rational explanation.

Inflationary Effects Are Transitory?

In addition, it is even more incredulous of Bernanke and his failure to acknowledge any role whatsoever for the feds function in these higher commodity prices when their stated goal is to in fact inflate asset prices. Whenever he is interviewed about this very question he always uses the standard response that inflationary pressures are not due to the recent Fed policy of QE2.

I guess these are assets that the Federal Reserve has expressly forbidden traders to inflate. However, Bernanke also adds that these inflationary effects are transitory in nature--he has been saying “transitory” for over 6 months now. How long does it take for ‘transitory” to become “stuck in the economy, and cannot get rid of without a massive rate hike sledgehammer”?

Fed Out of Touch with Reality

It is starting to sound like a broken record, and it is completely divorced from the facts in the marketplace, or the facts on the ground for those not in the Ivory Tower. It is this main street denial that has reinforced the notion that Bernanke and his dovish colleagues with their incessant soft selling of inflation in their comments regarding inflation questions every week that they are out of touch with reality.

This “fed out of touch with reality” notion only goes to reinforce the very “Inflation /Currency Devaluation Trade” causing traders to pile even more capital into shorting the US Dollar and going long Commodities because it is only going to get worse down the line. This is what is referred to as inflation expectations.

Dovish Fed Undermines The Dollar 

The fed policies regarding QE2 are not near as damaging for the US Dollar as traders perceptions of the Fed policy of QE2, and judging by the rise in Silver alone will tell you, traders perceptions of QE2 is extremely negative. And that old adage perception is reality takes hold and traders do far more damage to the US Dollar than any actual currency devaluation due to QE2 by going heavily short the currency. Traders and their perceptions right now are what is really hurting the US Dollar and Bernanke has failed to realize this fact.

Another interesting question for Bernanke and his Dovish colleagues, and it appears that even the more hawkish members of the Fed are still to dovish in their market comments regarding inflation. Probably because they all are in the upper income bracket on a percentage basis compared with the average US consumer, and are largely immune to the ridiculous six month rise in food and energy prices felt by the average American citizen.

The Fed can change all that on the 27th of April with either a cutting short of QE2, or an equally hawkish wording of the fed statement with a nod towards tightening sooner than previously indicated in past policy statement wording.

Everyone Worries Except the Fed

The Fed might ask themselves the following question:

• How come at every Speech where there is a question and answer session that you are asked about inflation?
• Or how come every reporter when interviewing a fed member asks them about their role in causing inflation around the world and how this is contributing to political and social instability in emerging economies?
• Is this just by coincidence, all these reporters and questions revolving around inflation effects? The answer is that these questions are being asked for a reason, and that alone is a problem for the fed.

Another question for Bernanke is how come every other country is worried about inflation, including developed economy neighbor Europe, while the US doesn`t have an inflation problem? It seems the US is the only country in the entire world where inflation isn`t a problem? Does this seem logical?  And if it is in fact the case, how long do you think it will stay this way, where the entire globe is experiencing inflation pressures but the US has a “transitory” inflation problem?

When Transitory Turns Self-Fulfilling

The problem for the Fed is that this goes beyond current inflationary effects in the economy, but future expectations of inflation in the economy. And none of these are transitory in nature once they get embedded in the psyche of investors and consumers. The only way they were doused in 2008 when they were at these exact levels was a near historic crash in the financial and housing markets.

Absent of some similarly extreme deflationary event, inflation and expectations of inflation are only going to feed on themselves and become even more firmly entrenched in the economy, negatively reinforcing investors and consumer’s asset allocation and spending habits.

This all becomes self fulfilling in nature, and the real nasty part about inflation is if you don`t head it off early, once it gets even a little momentum, it becomes much more difficult to control and manage. This is where the fed is right now; they are at the cusp of losing control of their handle on inflation with their incredibly dovish stance towards inflation.

End the Denial or Lose on Inflation

Bernanke and the current Federal Reserve Board have a credibility problem both with Wall Street traders and the American population. The sooner Ben Bernanke acknowledges his role in causing inflation, the better off we will be in fighting the battle of inflation. The longer the denial routine of “transitory’ responses continues, the increased chance that Bernanke loses what shred of remaining credibility he has on the inflation issue.

Then, the inflation battle is essentially lost without equally devastating policy responses that are almost similarly as bad as the inflation effects, i.e., you have to send the economy into a recession with an abundance of tightening measures that completely destroys growth to get a handle on prices.

Needed - Hawkish & Cut Short of QE2

Again, the Fed and Bernanke can change all this on the 27th of April, failure to do so basically dooms Bernanke`s legacy to be remembered by the initial moniker put on him when he initially was chosen as Alan Greenspan`s successor, when he was commonly referred to as “Helicopter Ben”!

During his first six months on the job as Fed chairman, he did everything possible to dispel such a label, but he has more than made up for that period during the last six months regarding his outright refusal to acknowledge the exceedingly negative side effects revolving around out of control food and energy prices related to his QE2 Initiative.

The average American citizen cannot withstand another two months of “Asset Inflating” on behalf of the Fed, enough is enough, time to cut the QE2 policy initiative short.

Phillips Curve -- Or "Grade-A Horse Manure"?

Another brilliant piece by John Hussman Phd.:


Much of the intellectual basis for the Federal Reserve's dual mandate - "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates" - is based on the belief in what economists call the Phillips Curve. The Phillips curve, named after economist A.W. Phillips, is widely understood as a "tradeoff" between inflation and unemployment. The idea is so engrained in the minds of economists and financial analysts that it is taken as obvious, incontrovertible fact. High unemployment, the argument goes, is associated with low inflation risk, and in that environment, policy makers can safely pursue measures targeted at increasing employment, without undesirable consequences for inflation.

You can see this blind acceptance of Phillips Curve thinking in Ben Bernanke's go-out-and-speculate Op-Ed in defense of quantitative easing, which appeared in the Washington Post late last year:

"The Federal Reserve's objectives - its dual mandate, set by Congress - are to promote a high level of employment and low, stable inflation... low and falling inflation indicate that the economy has considerable spare capacity, implying that there is scope for monetary policy to support further gains in employment without risking economic overheating. The FOMC decided this week that, with unemployment high and inflation very low, further support to the economy is needed."

In prior weekly comments, we've reviewed the weakness in Bernanke's argument that stock market fluctuations influence GDP, noting that every 1% change in market value is associated with a short-lived change of only 0.03-0.05% in real GDP. That result is strongly rooted in economic theory, since consumption and wealth effects are based on assets that are viewed to be "permanent," not on fluctuations in assets that are known to be volatile.

Similarly, Bernanke's belief in the Phillips Curve is equally devoid of factual substance, despite its broad acceptance and simplistic appeal. The chart below shows the historical record, since 1947, plotting the U.S. unemployment rate against the subsequent rate of CPI inflation over the following 2-year period. The correlation is essentially zero.

As it happens, economists have been well aware of this lack of correlation for decades, but because of the simple intellectual appeal of an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, they have gone to great lengths to try to make the relationship work. The most prominent version of this is the "expectations augmented" Phillips Curve, which looks at the graph above as a whole set of "nested" Phillips Curves (like indifference curves in consumer theory), where each curve is set at a different level based on the level of expected inflation. In this view, unexpected inflation moves you along a given Phillips Curve, while expected inflation shifts you to a different curve. While this version of the theory is popular among economists because it gives them a modeling "environment" in which to teach the importance of expectations and so forth, the fact remains even the expectations-augmented version has only a weak relationship to actual economic data.

In effect, the most basic intellectual underpinning of the Fed's "dual mandate" is Grade-A horse manure.

How can that be? Didn't A.W. Phillips demonstrate the inflation-unemployment tradeoff in historical data, giving rise to the famous curve that bears his name?

Well, actually, no.

See, the Phillips Curve takes its name from a 1958 Economica paper by A.W. Phillips, which studied the relationship between unemployment and wage inflation in Britain, using a century of historical data through the 1950's. What Phillips found was this: when unemployment was low, wage inflation tended to be above-average, and when unemployment was high, wage inflation tended to be subdued.

Yet even this relationship, when viewed in U.S. data since 1947, doesn't seem to hold up very well. In fact, U.S. unemployment is just as weakly related to nominal wages as it is with overall price inflation.

We can get to the heart of the Phillips Curve by asking one crucial question: What is the difference between Britain in the period from 1850-1950, and the United States in the post-war period?

The answer is simple. During most of the period that Phillips studied, Britain was on the gold standard. As a result, the general price level was actually very stable, with very little general price inflation at all. So when Phillips observed wage inflation, he was actually observing real wage inflation as well. When unemployment was low and available labor was scarce, workers were able to command a greater amount of real goods and services in return for their work. In contrast, when unemployment was high and available labor was plentiful, workers found that their standard of living typically did not rise quickly because their services were not in sufficient demand.

Phillips demonstrated a principle that is well-known to every economist: very simply, when a useful resource becomes scarce, its price tends to increase relative to the prices of other goods and services. That finding doesn't need all sorts of intellectual contortions or modeling tricks to make it "work," because it is one of the most basic laws of economics.

The true Phillips Curve, then, is a relationship between unemployment and real wages. When workers are scarce, wages tend to rise faster than the general price level. When workers are plentiful, wages tend to rise slower than the general price level. If we look at U.S. data in this way, we find precisely what A.W. Phillips found in British data. The following chart plots the U.S. unemployment rate versus the annual inflation in real wages (average hourly earnings deflated by the GDP price deflator) over the subsequent 2-year period.

The importance of the true Phillips Curve should not be underestimated. First, there is in fact no strong "tradeoff" between unemployment and general price inflation, and almost certainly not an exploitable one. The Phillips Curve is essentially a statement that lower unemployment is associated with higher inflation in real wages. The strategy of accepting higher inflation in hopes of achieving lower unemployment (which is the basis of Bernanke's policy efforts) not only drops the phrase "real wages" but reverses the direction of cause and effect.

The other important implication of this analysis is that real wages for U.S. workers are likely to stagnate for a prolonged period of time. As a side note, lest the prospect of further suffering among workers suggests that corporate profits and stock market returns will be correspondingly higher at their expense, I should note that there is virtually no correlation between real wage growth and total returns in the S&P 500. Weak employment conditions are a universal bad.

That said, however, the belief that the Federal Reserve can offset this by encouraging higher inflation is a dangerous and misguided dogma, which simply adds insult to injury to people at lower income levels who spend a large proportion of their income on food and energy. What the nation needs urgently is for the Fed to abandon its endless policy of distorting asset prices. This policy has the effect of reducing prospective future investment returns, damaging the incentive to save, and misallocating resources, all while increasing systemic risk and moral hazard - defending excessive risk-taking against losses over the short-run while leaving the nation vulnerable to the damaging consequences of that risk-taking over the long run.

I've long argued that the Fed has an essential function in providing liquidity during periods of banking crisis, but I have been dismayed by the extent to which the Fed has breached the restrictions of the Federal Reserve Act in recent years, as well as by the increasingly distortive policies it has pursued.

Market veteran Ned Davis puts it nicely "I think the Fed has punished savers and has put us between a rock and a hard place with QE2. It has kept the banking system liquid and helped goose stocks. But in that it has also provided juice for a commodity explosion that has hurt the world's poor, it has offset much, if not all, the good it did. In that real money (ex inflation) matters, the situation is not nearly as favorable as most Fed watchers believe."

Similarly, Vitaliy Katsenelson related a recent speech by the Fed's Thomas Hoenig at the Colorado CFA Society - "He said these policies encourage speculation and don't allow for price discovery, and consequently they lead to imbalances, unintended consequences, and misallocation of resources. He said it is important to judge QE2's success over the right time frame, one long enough to encompass not just its stimulative benefits but also its consequences." Hoenig argued that the Fed's intervention will have unintended consequences, and offered as an example the Fed's actions of 2003, the resulting asset bubble, and the subsequent financial crisis that resulted. Vitaliy observed "I too believe that the Fed's actions in 2003 played a very large role in the subsequent real estate bubble, financial crisis, and today's high unemployment, but this was the first time I've heard such an admission come directly from a Fed governor."

With respect to the Bernanke's actions, Vitaliy quoted the 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat:

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen... the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."

Fed and China Can't Have it Both Ways

by Charles Hugh Smith of oftwominds.com blog

Sorry, Fed and People's Bank of China: You Can't Have It Both Ways   (March 15, 2011) My thoughts are with those trying to contain the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan, and with their families, who are justifiably worried about the health consequences their loved ones risk as they work long hours in hazardous and difficult conditions. You can't have it both ways, but that isn't stopping the Fed and the PBOC from continuing their doomed policies. The Federal Reserve and the People's Bank of China are each trying to have it both ways: they want rapid growth in money supply, lending and the economy but no troublesome jumps in the price of essentials. Yet the rapid expansion of money supply and credit feeds volatile price increases and politically disruptive income inequality. While the world watches and hopes the reactor containment structures in Japan hold, whatever the aftermath of this deepening nuclear crisis, we will be living in a world defined by the financial policies of the Federal Reserve and the People's Bank of China. Frequent contributor Harun I. neatly summarized the problem with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's explanation for why the Fed's policies had nothing to do with skyrocketing global commodity prices: What I find troubling about Bernanke these days is his overt dissembling. Before congress he says that the recovery, not money printing is causing a rather destabilizing spike in commodity prices. Looking for evidence in nominal price charts, there is none to be found. What he is trying to make us believe that from 1982 to 1998 (the great equity bull market) there was not enough demand to drive crude oil prices where they are today. Hmm. At any rate he can not have it both ways. He cannot claim that he needs to print money to spur "acceptable inflation" (which effectively raises prices) while claiming that money printing has nothing to do with rises prices. Thank you, Harun. The Fed is being disingenuous in claiming it is blameless for global inflation: the Fed's zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing are both unleashing "hot money" that is seeking higher returns anywhere they can be found in the global economy. In a larger sense, the Fed is attempting to repeal the business cycle. In the normal course of capitalism, low rates and easy credit lead to increased borrowing, which leads to rising consumption and investment in production to feed that increased consumption. This leads to higher profits, which feed more investment and debt. At some point, the cycle hits a brick wall: borrowers can't afford to pay more interest, so debt stops rising, and consumption and demand slump as borrowing levels off. In the rush to mint profits, production capacity exceeds demand, and as a result prices and profits both fall. As the boom progressed, investors sought out riskier, more marginal investments. As new debt and demand fall, then these riskier investments lose money and are either shuttered or sold for a loss. As profits decline, workers are laid off and commercial borrowers find their income streams aren't sufficient to meet their obligations. The credit cycle turns from expansion to contraction, as marginal borrowers go bankrupt and insolvent businesses and loans are liquidated or written down. This purging of bad debt, speculative excess and misallocated resources sets the foundation for another cycle of renewed growth. But the Fed has attempted to repeal the credit cycle. Rather than allow credit to fall sharply and interest rates to rise as bad debt is purged from the financial system, the Fed has pursued a policy of making credit even cheaper in the hopes that financial-sector borrowers will be able to borrow more since rates are near-zero. But since consumers and enterprises are still burdened with mountains of existing debt, few are willing or qualified to borrow more. As I recently wrote here, consumer debt in the U.S. has declined a paltry 2.7% in the Great Recession. The Fed's quantitative easing ends up flowing not to households or productive enterprises but to the “too big to fail” banks and Wall Street firms, which then seek higher returns in assets such as stocks and commodities. The Fed's intention was to push money into productive enterprises, but instead it has fed pools of speculative money chasing high returns in global commodities. This is helping to fuel inflation in food and other commodities, not just in the U.S. but globally. Now the Fed has backed itself into a corner: if it keeps interest rates low and continues pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into “hot money” hands, then it will adding to the destabilizing consequences of rising commodity inflation. If it stops its quantitative easing stimulus to help cool global inflation, it threatens to derail the stock market run-up. Without QE2 to hold down rates, interest rates will rise, pushing marginal borrowers out of the market and increasing borrowing costs for everyone from new home buyers to those buying new vehicles. By attempting to repeal the business cycle and refusing to allow a necessary credit cleansing (writing off of bad debt) and repricing of risk, the Fed has created an inescapable double-bind for itself: either continue to pursue easy-money policies and help destabilize the global economy with rising commodity inflation, or allow interest rates to rise and destabilize speculative markets and marginal borrowers. China is also trying to have it both ways. China's leadership is on the horns of a dilemma: if it continues pumping up rapid growth, it will inevitably feed inflation, while if it raises interest rates and curbs lending to limit inflation, that policy will restrain overall growth. Though profits and gross domestic product (GDP) have been surging over the past decade as China's productivity improved, these gains have not trickled down to the workers' paychecks. According to the National Development and Reform Commission, incomes only kept pace with profits and GDP in three of China's 27 provinces. In other words, the "rapid growth" is flowing only to the top tranch of China's households, while food and energy inflation's impact is felt mostly by lower-income wage earners. In effect, China's economy and political structure is creating a nation of Haves and Have-Nots. (Sound familiar? Just substitute "America" for "China" and the statement is equally true.) Victor Shih, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, sees the government's tight control over yields on savings accounts and lending rates as a primary cause of rising inequality: as inflation accelerates, China's savers are losing money, as the return on savings is lower than the rate of inflation. Negative returns on savings act as a stealth tax on China's households and a subsidy to the government-owned banks. The banks then turn around and loan money to politically connected real estate developers and government-owned enterprises at interest rates that are near zero in inflation-adjusted terms. "The Chinese financial system channels wealth from ordinary households to a small handful of connected insiders and state-owned firms," writes Shih. Insiders and top managers take home substantial income in cash that goes unreported in regular channels—so-called "grey income." This is another source of wealth inequality: average workers don't receive these large cash payments, which are considered commissions and bonuses in China. A Credit Suisse survey of urban households in China found $1.5 trillion in grey income unreported in the official household income numbers. About 60 percent of this grey income flowed to the top 10 % of households. According to Shih, while income of normal households rose 8%, the top 10% of households saw their income leap by 25% The net result of these structural imbalances, in Shih's view, is a China that is "increasingly splitting into a small upper class that spends freely on luxury goods, and a remaining population whose earnings and savings are eroded by inflation and state confiscation." So both the Fed and the PBOC are creating two equally destructive and pernicious financial forces: runaway commodity prices fueled by asset bubbles and heavily goosed speculation, and rapidly increasing wealth/income inequality as the gains from speculative excess flow to the top while the price increases and low yield on savings stripmines purchasing power from those least able to afford it. You can't have it both ways, and that's something neither the Fed nor the PBOC is willing to admit--yet.

Apres Nous, Le Deluge

From Egon von Greyerz of Matterhorn Asset Management
 
Apres Nous, Le Deluge

Happy days are here again! Stock markets are strong, company profits are up, bankers are making record profits and bonuses, unemployment is declining, and inflation is non-existent. Obama and Bernanke are the dream team making the US into the Superpower it once was.

Yes, it is amazing the castles in the air that can be built with paper money and deceitful manipulation of all economic data.  And Madame Bernanke de Pompadour will do anything to keep King Louis XV Obama happy, including flooding markets with unlimited amounts of printed money. They both know that, in their holy alliance, they are committing a cardinal sin. But clinging to power is more important than the good of the country.  An economic and social disaster is imminent for the US and a major part of the world and Bernanke de Pompadour and Louis XV Obama are praying that it won’t happen during their reign: “Après nous le déluge”. (Warm thanks to my good friend the artist Leo Lein).

Moral and financial decadence

A deluge of an unprecedented magnitude is both inevitable and imminent. The consequences of the economic and political mismanagement will have a devastating impact on the world for a very long time. And the consequences will touch most corners of the world in so many different areas; economic, financial, social, political and geopolitical. The adjustment that the world will undergo in the next decade or longer, will be of such colossal magnitude that life will be very different for coming generations compared to the current social, financial and moral decadence. But history always gives us lessons and the one that is coming will be necessary and eventually good for the world. But the transition and adjustment will be extremely traumatic for most of us.

We have reached a degree of decadence that in many aspects equals what happened in the Roman Empire before its fall.  The family is no longer the kernel of society. More than 50% of children in the Western world grow up in a one parent home, either being born by a single mother or with divorced parents. Children are neither taught ethical or moral values nor discipline. Many children consider attending school as optional and education standards are declining precipitously.  Most families do not have a meal around the dinner table even once a week. Sex and violence are common place on television and in real life. Both press and television create totally false values and ideals. Everyone must be young and beautiful often enhanced by surgical or digital means. Old people have little value and their wisdom is not benefitting the younger generations.

The Golden Calf or materialism is the ultimate value that is worshipped and no means are eschewed to attain material goals. Since most of the prosperity that has been achieved in the last 40 years is based on printed money and debt, it is totally false and unsustainable. A major part of the Western world has improved their living standard, by exchanging services and swapping houses at ever rising prices financed by printed paper and credit. The perceived wealth that is created out of this is illusory and ephemeral. We have created a world economy which is based on debt and thin air.

The Gini coefficient of income and wealth is now reaching extremes in many countries. This measures the inequality between the rich and the poor. In the US the Gini coefficient is now at the same level as in the 1920s before the depression. In countries like the US, the rich are getting richer whilst 45 million people live below the poverty line, 43 million receive food stamps and over 700,000 are homeless. With a real unemployment rate of 22% and urban youth unemployment much higher, the US will soon experience social unrest.

But it is not only the US that will experience financial misery, famine and social unrest. This will also hit most European countries and in particular the UK, southern Europe, Eastern Europe and the Baltic States as well as African countries, the Middle East, Asia, yes in fact the whole world.

Are boom and busts inevitable?

Well if you listened to the former British Labour Prime Minster Gordon Brown, he proudly declared that he had abolished booms and busts and thus economic cycles. But he was expeditiously thrown out at the next bust which of course had nothing to do with him since he blamed the US sub-prime market for his ill-fated destiny.

Cycles or ebbs and flows are a natural part of both economic life and nature. And right at the point when something could be done to limit the damage, most nations seem to have the uncanny knack of selecting the political individuals who will put fuel on the fire and make the situation catastrophically worse.

Greenspan was one such individual. During his 19 years as Chairman of the Fed, he could have limited the economic and social damage that the US would suffer. Instead he took every single measure possible to ensure that there would be a catastrophe with uncontrollable consequences. But we shouldn’t just blame the incompetence of Greenspan. It was sickening to watch every sycophantic congressman and senator licking Greenspan’s boots and praising his wisdom. Because Greenspan’s money printing and incompetent interest rate management created one of the biggest financial bubbles in world economic history. But the politicians loved this. It made the stock market boom, and house prices surge. Thus the politicians were all loved by their voters who did not understand the dire consequences that were looming. And Bernanke de Pompadour is continuing the same disastrous policies of creating money out of thin air. When will they ever learn that creating money out of thin air and running astronomical deficits that never will be repaid with normal money leads to the road of total ruin? When will they ever learn? The very sad answer is that they won’t and therefore they are leading the world into a hyperinflationary depression that will have uncontrollable and cataclysmic consequences for current and future generations.

Empty stomachs are rioting

We have for years warned about hyperinflation leading to famine, misery and social unrest. Well, this is exactly what is happening in many parts of the world. The protests and overthrowing of regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are primarily due to a major part of the peoples of these nations having no job, no money and little food. It is their empty stomachs that are rioting. In addition they are protesting against the leaders of these countries stealing from the people.

It is virtually certain that these riots will spread to many countries in the Middle East, Africa and the developing world. This will lead to new regimes and new political orders that could either be far left or far right politically or religious extremists. But the new regimes will not be in a position to change the root of the problem which is famine and poverty.  In Egypt for example there has been a quiet military coup. It is unlikely that a democratic regime will take over from the military. So the people will protest again and again. And this will be the same in most countries. Eventually the people will take the law into their own hands since no regime will be able to give them the food that they need.

The hyperinflationary deluge is imminent

Although food and fuel inflation is rampant worldwide already, we are only seeing the very beginning. Massive oil price rises are likely to continue as a result of the geopolitical situation as well as peak-oil. The Middle East is a time bomb waiting to go off. Israel is in an extremely precarious position and the involvement or non-involvement of the US in this conflict would both have dire consequences for Israel and peace in the world. Food prices will continue to rise dramatically. Major parts of the world are living below the poverty line today and this will increase exponentially.

The lethal concoction of rising food and fuel prices is already affecting the Western world. The Continuous Commodity Index – CCI, (60% food, 17% energy and 23% metals) has almost doubled since the low in early 2009 and has gone up 42% in the last 12 months. The almost vertical rise of the CCI is one of the best indicators of hyperinflation being imminent. A catastrophe of astronomical proportions is looming. This will hit the world at a time when there is no capacity whatsoever to take any real measures that could alleviate the problems.

(Click image to enlarge)

Most countries are already running major deficits which will increase dramatically in the next few years. The banking system is bankrupt and is only holding together due to false valuations of toxic debt and derivatives. This is done with the blessing of governments since virtually no major bank could face an honest valuation of its assets. Unemployment and especially youth unemployment is currently a problem worldwide and it will get much worse. In 2010, the US government spent 60% more than its revenues. In order to balance the budget individual and corporate income taxes would have to double.

Never before in history has the world run out of real money as well as (affordable) food and fuel simultaneously. But his is exactly what is happening now and it will get substantially worse in the next few months and years.

Financial misery, famine and high unemployment combined with governments that will not be in a position to give real help are a recipe for disaster that will lead to social unrest and revolutions not only in developing countries but also in the West. Hungry people are desperate people and desperate people do desperate deeds. We could see already in 2011 food shortages, and riots both in Europe and in the US.

Hyperinflation Watch

The following are INDISPUTALBLE FACTS:

• The US dollar is down 82% against gold since 1999
• The US dollar is down 49% against the Swiss Francs since 2001
• The Dow Jones is down 81% against gold since 1999
• The Continuous Commodity Index is up 100% since 2009

The above facts are clear evidence of an economy that has been totally mismanaged. But more importantly most of these trends are now starting to accelerate – a clear sign that hyperinflation is just around the corner.

With years of negative net worth and negative cash flow, the US is bankrupt today. The Federal deficit is forecast to increase by at least another $ 5 trillion in the next 5-7 years.  Add to this the State deficits, the Municipal and City deficits that are rising at a galloping rate and we have a country that is going to haemorrhage to death in the next few years. One wonders when the totally ineffective and clueless rating agencies are going to fathom this. Not that it will matter if they once do.  One also wonders what Mme Bernanke de Pompadour and his court are thinking. “She” and her courtiers should have above average intelligence and could not possibly avoid seeing the facts that we all see today (of course, some of us have seen it coming for over a decade). But “she” has to please her master King Louis XV Obama and her devotion to the king goes above all reasonable common sense, or rationale. So the two of them will continue to crank up the printing press and drown their people and the world in worthless paper.

Stock Market

To believe that the current money printing liquidity boom is real and sustainable would be a very serious and expensive mistake. The temporary and illusionary pickup that we are now seeing in the economy and stock market is the normal initial phase of a hyperinflationary economy. It must not be mistaken for a real improvement in the economy.

The normal pattern at the beginning of a hyperinflationary period is that stock markets surge. This is the result of the increased liquidity and a flight to more inflation proof assets. This was the case in for example the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe.  Just look at the chart below of the Zimbabwe stock exchange that went from 1,420 in January 2005 to 5.4 trillion in June 2008, a 3 billion per cent increase.  That was of course in Zimbabwe dollars. In US dollars the stock exchange went sideways with major volatility.  So in hyperinflationary terms stock markets could continue to rise initially thus making them a better investment than cash. However, measured against real money, the Dow has gone down 82% against gold since 1999 and 86% against silver since 2001 (see chart above). We are currently seeing a dead cat bounce but we expect the Dow to decline a further 90%, at least, against gold in the next few years. So even if stock market investments will initially give the illusion of protecting investors, it will be a very poor hedge against the ravages of hyperinflation in real terms.

ZIMBABWE STOCK INDEX 2007-2008

Bond market

In January 2009, we warned investors that long term interest rates were bottoming. Since then the 30 year bond yield is up from 2.6% to 4.6% an 80% rise. But more importantly the 30 year is currently in the process of breaking a 17 year downtrend line which dates back to 1994. This confirms that rates will now start a major and rapid rise which is likely to reach the mid-teens or higher. Governments will attempt to keep short rates low due to weak economies but eventually the rising long rates will put strong upward pressure on the short rates.  So the flight to government bonds that we have seen in the last few years will soon reverse into a massive rush for the exit. This will coincide with rapidly increasing financing requirements by the US, UK, EU and many other governments. The poisonous concoction of rising rates and rising financing needs will create a vicious circle of collapsing bond markets and unsustainably high financing cost. This will continue to drive interest rates even higher which will further increase deficits and necessitate even faster running printing presses. Add to that a collapsing currency and the hyperinflationary picture is complete. It is our very strong view that investors should exit bond markets entirely if they want to avoid a total destruction of their assets.

Currency Market

As we have explained for many years, hyperinflation is created by the government destroying the currency as a result of money printing to finance deficits. This leads to the cost push inflation that we are now experiencing. Add to that, shortages in commodities worldwide, thus creating the perfect hyperinflationary scenario. The Dollar, the Pound, the Euro and many other currencies will continue to decline. They can’t all decline against each other at the same time so the market will take turns in attacking one currency at a time. But all currencies will continue to decline against gold. We believe that the dollar will soon start a very rapid fall against gold and against many currencies. Investors should exit the Dollar and also the Pound and the Euro. There is no currency better than gold or silver but for any small amounts of cash we prefer the Swiss Franc, the Norwegian Krone, the Singapore dollar and the Canadian dollar.

Wealth Protection

A hyperinflationary depression will destroy the value of money as well as most assets that were financed by the credit bubble (property, stock market).  Wealth protection is now critical and urgent. We see no better way of protecting assets against total destruction than physical gold and silver stored outside the banking system. Thereafter, precious metals, energy and food stocks are our preference.  But it must be remembered that any asset including stocks that is held through a bank is dependent on a sound and surviving banking system.

The real move in precious metals is still to come as we have outlined in many articles. Less than 1% of investors own gold. Before this economic cycle is over we are likely to see a mania in physical precious metals that will drive prices exponentially higher. And luckily for investors, this is a mania which is unlikely to end in a collapse since gold most probably will be part of a future reserve currency.

Finally we are again quoting von Mises who clearly understood that “le déluge” is inevitable:

“There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” – Ludwig von Mises