The Annotated (223 Year) History Of The US Bond 'Bubble'

The last few days have seen significant shifts in the term structure of US Treasury bonds; auctions have not gone well and despite the world’s expectations for ‘taper’ to lead to a surge in rates, the long-end of the bond-market has rallied. While Goldman might believe the ‘bond bubble’ is starting to pop, the following 223 years of Treasury yields (through free-markets and centrally-planned) sheds some light on what the ‘new normal’ level of rates really represents because, as we noted previously, the world is so levered now that any ‘reversion’ in rates is simply unthinkable.

 

 

Notice any difference pre- and post-Fed?

 

Chart: Goldman Sachs


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cx4NWgb6XNo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Annotated (223 Year) History Of The US Bond ‘Bubble’

The last few days have seen significant shifts in the term structure of US Treasury bonds; auctions have not gone well and despite the world’s expectations for ‘taper’ to lead to a surge in rates, the long-end of the bond-market has rallied. While Goldman might believe the ‘bond bubble’ is starting to pop, the following 223 years of Treasury yields (through free-markets and centrally-planned) sheds some light on what the ‘new normal’ level of rates really represents because, as we noted previously, the world is so levered now that any ‘reversion’ in rates is simply unthinkable.

 

 

Notice any difference pre- and post-Fed?

 

Chart: Goldman Sachs


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cx4NWgb6XNo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

3 “Hangovers” From The FOMC’s ‘Taper’

Submitted by F.F. Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,

Here are a few moments from Wednesday’s FOMC press conference that stuck in our heads, all from Ben Bernanke’s comments in his last Q&A as Fed chair:

 

On financial instability questions

[W]e can’t control [financial instability concerns] perfectly and there may be situations when financial instability has implications for our mandate … which we saw of course in the Great Recession. So it’s a very complex issue. I think it will be many years before central banks have completely worked out exactly how best to deal with financial instability questions.

Has the chairman been this forthright recently about the Fed’s lack of understanding of financial instability? If so, I don’t remember it. He seemed to take a different approach in his last presser versus, say, congressional testimony. Here’s how Janet Yellen dealt with the same topic in her confirmation hearing last month:

No-one wants to live through another financial crisis, and the Federal Reserve is devoting substantial resources and time and effort at monitoring those risks. At this stage, I don’t see risks of financial instability. There is limited evidence of ‘reach for yield’. We don’t see a broad build-up in leverage or the development of risks that I think at this stage poses a risk to financial stability.

This is closer to what we’re used to, which is essentially: “Look, we have a whole bunch of people working on this thing and don’t see any problems. Next?”

On Bernanke’s personal regrets

Whether or not we could have prevented [the global financial crisis] or done more about it, that’s another question. By the time I became chairman, it was already 2006 and house prices were already declining. Most of the mortgages had been made. But obviously it would have been good to have recognized that earlier and tried to take more preventative action.

Do FOMC governors not count? Don’t they have responsibilities? Except for the last seven months of 2005 – when the FOMC was on an autopilot rate hiking program of 0.25% per meeting – Bernanke has participated in every FOMC meeting since August 2002 as either a governor or chairman. He never cast a dissenting vote. As a known deflation hawk and inflation targeting advocate, he was closely associated with the June 2003 rate cut that lowered the fed funds rate to its housing boom trough of 1%. He famously dismissed the possibility of a fall in house prices. Were the bolded sentences really necessary?

More on financial instability

Our general philosophy on financial instability issues is where we can that we try to address it first and foremost by making sure that the banking system and the financial system are as strong as possible.

This is another way of saying that the Fed will never again let another large financial institution fail. There’s nothing new here; just a reminder that all talk of ending bailouts is empty and all Fedspeak about the dangers of moral hazard is lip service.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/WaRHjKWw32c/story01.htm Tyler Durden

3 "Hangovers" From The FOMC's 'Taper'

Submitted by F.F. Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,

Here are a few moments from Wednesday’s FOMC press conference that stuck in our heads, all from Ben Bernanke’s comments in his last Q&A as Fed chair:

 

On financial instability questions

[W]e can’t control [financial instability concerns] perfectly and there may be situations when financial instability has implications for our mandate … which we saw of course in the Great Recession. So it’s a very complex issue. I think it will be many years before central banks have completely worked out exactly how best to deal with financial instability questions.

Has the chairman been this forthright recently about the Fed’s lack of understanding of financial instability? If so, I don’t remember it. He seemed to take a different approach in his last presser versus, say, congressional testimony. Here’s how Janet Yellen dealt with the same topic in her confirmation hearing last month:

No-one wants to live through another financial crisis, and the Federal Reserve is devoting substantial resources and time and effort at monitoring those risks. At this stage, I don’t see risks of financial instability. There is limited evidence of ‘reach for yield’. We don’t see a broad build-up in leverage or the development of risks that I think at this stage poses a risk to financial stability.

This is closer to what we’re used to, which is essentially: “Look, we have a whole bunch of people working on this thing and don’t see any problems. Next?”

On Bernanke’s personal regrets

Whether or not we could have prevented [the global financial crisis] or done more about it, that’s another question. By the time I became chairman, it was already 2006 and house prices were already declining. Most of the mortgages had been made. But obviously it would have been good to have recognized that earlier and tried to take more preventative action.

Do FOMC governors not count? Don’t they have responsibilities? Except for the last seven months of 2005 – when the FOMC was on an autopilot rate hiking program of 0.25% per meeting – Bernanke has participated in every FOMC meeting since August 2002 as either a governor or chairman. He never cast a dissenting vote. As a known deflation hawk and inflation targeting advocate, he was closely associated with the June 2003 rate cut that lowered the fed funds rate to its housing boom trough of 1%. He famously dismissed the possibility of a fall in house prices. Were the bolded sentences really necessary?

More on financial instability

Our general philosophy on financial instability issues is where we can that we try to address it first and foremost by making sure that the banking system and the financial system are as strong as possible.

This is another way of saying that the Fed will never again let another large financial institution fail. There’s nothing new here; just a reminder that all talk of ending bailouts is empty and all Fedspeak about the dangers of moral hazard is lip service.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/WaRHjKWw32c/story01.htm Tyler Durden

US Aircraft, UN Helicopter Attacked In South Sudan

With a wave of detente spilling over the Middle East, following the surprising US overture to calm relations with Syria and Iran just months after it nearly launched an offensive war in the country over a few fabricated YouTube clops Looks like Africa will be the next geopolitical hotspot. But while France is the figurehead leading the offensive over west Africa, focusing on Mali and the Central African Republic, where they are “peacekeeping” (with the support of US drones), east Africa appears set for a full-blown flare out, with the Sudan area emerging as the dominant zone of instability and future escalation. Which is perhaps why not only a US aircraft, but a UN helicopter, both came under fire in the Sudan over the past 24 hours in what is assured to generate an “appropriate” response by the US. 

First, Reuters reports about a U.S. aircraft which was by gunfire in South Sudan:

A U.S. aircraft came under fire on Saturday on a mission to evacuate Americans from spiraling conflict in South Sudan and four U.S. military service members were wounded.

 

Nearly a week of fighting threatens to drag the world’s newest country into an ethnic civil war just two years after it won independence from Sudan with strong support from successive U.S. administrations.

 

The U.S. aircraft came under fire while approaching the evacuation site, the military’s Africa Command said in a statement. “The aircraft diverted to an airfield outside the country and aborted the mission,” it said.

 

Hundreds of people have been killed in the fighting that pits loyalists of President Salva Kiir, of the Dinka ethnic group, against those of his former vice president Riek Machar, a Nuer who was sacked in July and is accused by the government of trying to seize power.

 

Fighting that spread from the capital, Juba, has now reached vital oilfields and the government said a senior army commander had defected to Machar in the oil-producing Unity State.

And just to assure a condemning social response is generated, and the public mood against the South Sudan is sufficiently negative, the AP just reported that a UN helicopter in the region had been downed also following gunfire by local militant:

Two officials have told The Associated Press that a U.N. helicopter trying to evacuate peacekeepers and civilians was fired on and sustained significant damage on Friday in the same restive South Sudan state where a U.S. helicopter was hit Saturday.

 

Rob McKee of Warrior Security said the U.N. helicopter was hit by small arms fire and made an emergency landing while trying to evacuate personnel from a base in Yuai in Jonglei state. A second official who insisted on anonymity because the information hasn’t been released said the helicopter was abandoned and remains unable to fly. No injuries were reported.

 

A U.N. spokesman didn’t answer a phone call or email seeking comment.

 

U.S. aircraft were fired on Saturday in Bor, the capital of Jonglei. Four U.S. service members were wounded.

Of course, the question is why the US (and, laughably, French) scramble to get involved militarily in Africa now? The answer is easy: as we reported in June 2012, in the rush for Africa China has a multi-year head start in the colonization race. So what short cuts is a self-determined superpower to do to catch up – why find one pretext after another to send a military force and achieve through brute force what China has been able to attain through infrastructure and domestic investing over the past several years.

From June 2012:

“The Beijing Conference”: See How China Quietly Took Over Africa

Back in 1885, to much fanfare, the General Act of the Berlin Conference launched the Scramble for Africa which saw the partition of the continent, formerly a loose aggregation of various tribes, into the countries that currently make up the southern continent, by the dominant superpowers (all of them European) of the day. Subsequently Africa was pillaged, plundered, and in most places, left for dead. The fact that a credit system reliant on petrodollars never managed to take hold only precipitated the “developed world” disappointment with Africa, no matter what various enlightened, humanitarian singer/writer/poet/visionaries claim otherwise. And so the continent languished. Until what we have dubbed as the “Beijing Conference” quietly took place, and to which only Goldman Sachs, which too has been quietly but very aggressively expanding in Africa, was invited. As the map below from Stratfor shows, ever since 2010, when China pledged over $100 billion to develop commercial projects in Africa, the continent has now become de facto Chinese territory. Because where the infrastructure spending has taken place, next follow strategic sovereign investments, and other modernization pathways, until gradually Africa is nothing but an annexed territory for Beijing, full to the brim with critical raw materials, resources and supplies. So while the “developed world” was and continues to deny the fact that it is broke, all the while having exactly zero money to invest in expansion, China is quietly taking over the world. Literally.

 

More from Stratfor:

In late July, Beijing hosted the 5th Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, during which China pledged up to $20 billion to African countries over the next three years. China has proposed or committed about $101 billion to commercial projects in Africa since 2010, some of which are under negotiation while others are currently under way. Together, construction and natural resource deals total approximately $90 billion, or about 90 percent of Chinese commercial activity in Africa since 2010. These figures could be even higher because of an additional $7.5 billion in unspecified commitments to South Africa and Zambia, likely intended for mining projects. Of the remaining $3 billion in Chinese commercial commitments to Africa, about $2.1 billion will be used on local manufacturing projects. While China has proposed $750 million for agriculture and general development aid and about $50 million to support small- and medium-sized business development in addition to the aforementioned projects, it has been criticized for the extractive nature of its relationship with many African countries, as well as the poor quality of some of its construction work. However, since many African countries lack the indigenous engineering capability to construct these large-scale projects or the capital to undertake them, African governments with limited resources welcome Chinese investments enthusiastically. These foreign investment projects are also a boon for Beijing, since China needs African resources to sustain its domestic economy, and the projects in Af
rica provide a destination for excess Chinese labor.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/pgDn_E6kJC0/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Mel Watt on Fannie and Freddie – "I want to go back to 2008"

 

When Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the rules on how the Senate votes for a Presidential appointment, he opened the door for a critical change in the leadership at the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA). In short order, the Administrations' pick for the job, Mel Watt, got the appointment that had been stalled for a year, and Mike DeMarco is out. Liberals hated DeMarco. And with good reason.

FHFA was formed when Fannie and Freddie went into receivership back in 2009. FHFA was tasked, by law, with one and only one mission:

 

Minimize losses to taxpayers from F/F

 

DeMarco succeeded in this mission. As of today, F/F have paid back virtually all of the bailout money they received in 2009 and 2010. By the end of 2014 the taxpayers will be in the black from the bailouts. How was this miracle achieved? Simple – F/F stopped making bad loans.

When I say 'bad loans' I mean mortgages that are not structured or priced right. A good mortgage loan is made to someone who has down-payment money and a job that pays enough to service the mortgage. The borrower must have a credit background that demonstrates that they are able and willing to make monthly payments. Not so complicated.

Mel Watt will take over the FHFA in January. But even before he finds where the bathroom is at his new job he is changing the rules. He stated on Friday that he wants to reduce fees to borrowers who do not have the 20% down-payment and for borrowers with lower credit scores.

 

wsj

 

Watt's statement is payback for the liberals/progressives who want to take F/F back to the status quo of 2008 and who supported Watt to that end. In 2008 the mortgage giants were agents of federal policy on housing. The 'mission' was to increase home ownership at any cost. As it turned out, the cost of achieving those goals damn near destroyed the global economy. And now Mel Watt wants to turn the clock back five years and make the same mistakes all over.

What is the intent of the fees that were scheduled to go into effect in March of 2014? The goal was to increase the costs of borrowing from F/F in the hope that private lenders would come into the mortgage market and take business away from F/F. The DeMarco plan was to shrink F/F over time, and get D.C. out of the mortgage business. His actions were consistent with his mandate – minimize taxpayer risks. Demarco's words:

 

"those fees should rise in order to allow private investors, which target a higher rate of return, to compete."

 

So this frames the political debate. The liberal side of the equation wants to subsidize the mortgage market and exclude private capital. They want to do this to achieve social objectives of home ownership and to make a small step toward wealth redistribution. Lofty and admirable goals. But the tradeoff is that F/F will get bigger and more dominant in the mortgage business. Their role in the economy will expand, not contract – and the USA is once again opening the door for another crisis. A crisis that will work completely contrary to the stated goals of leveling the economic playing field (as it did in 2008).

With Watt taking over, the die is cast. FHFA, Fannie and Freddie are turning a corner and headed in a new (old) direction. When Watt takes over on January 6 we will see a bunch of new measures that will confirm the change in strategy. Many will cheer those efforts. It will mean a bigger role for F/F. It means the USA is doing a u-turn back to 2008. And it means that someday we will have a problem again.

 

Note:

It's not only liberals who hated DeMarco. Those who speculated in Fannie and Freddie common and preferred shares did too. DeMarco passed a rule (no votes anywhere) that 100% of F/F's income would go to the government and not be used to pay off the borrowings that occurred in the bailout. DeMarco's policy is now subject to suits from various hedge funds. DeMarco's action put the holders of F/F stock behind a huge wall. In theory, those shares are worthless, as F/F were on a glide path to be wound-down to nothing.

Watt can't deliver on his promises to those who got him his new job and at the same time continue with a plan to shutter F/F. If the companies do have a different future with Watt running the show, does that mean that the pref stock has a future too?

These are the actors on this stage:

 

The Speculators:

carlyle

JP

The Carlyle Group prepares to launch its IPO

 

How do the specs feel about Watt?

 

images

 

 

The Good Guys??

 

WATT

 

&

 

CUMMINGS

 

Talk about strange bedfellows – this one takes the cake. I wonder who will prevail in the end??

 

gregory-maiofis-1

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Mz_1Y7f4bxc/story01.htm Bruce Krasting

Mel Watt on Fannie and Freddie – “I want to go back to 2008”

 

When Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the rules on how the Senate votes for a Presidential appointment, he opened the door for a critical change in the leadership at the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA). In short order, the Administrations' pick for the job, Mel Watt, got the appointment that had been stalled for a year, and Mike DeMarco is out. Liberals hated DeMarco. And with good reason.

FHFA was formed when Fannie and Freddie went into receivership back in 2009. FHFA was tasked, by law, with one and only one mission:

 

Minimize losses to taxpayers from F/F

 

DeMarco succeeded in this mission. As of today, F/F have paid back virtually all of the bailout money they received in 2009 and 2010. By the end of 2014 the taxpayers will be in the black from the bailouts. How was this miracle achieved? Simple – F/F stopped making bad loans.

When I say 'bad loans' I mean mortgages that are not structured or priced right. A good mortgage loan is made to someone who has down-payment money and a job that pays enough to service the mortgage. The borrower must have a credit background that demonstrates that they are able and willing to make monthly payments. Not so complicated.

Mel Watt will take over the FHFA in January. But even before he finds where the bathroom is at his new job he is changing the rules. He stated on Friday that he wants to reduce fees to borrowers who do not have the 20% down-payment and for borrowers with lower credit scores.

 

wsj

 

Watt's statement is payback for the liberals/progressives who want to take F/F back to the status quo of 2008 and who supported Watt to that end. In 2008 the mortgage giants were agents of federal policy on housing. The 'mission' was to increase home ownership at any cost. As it turned out, the cost of achieving those goals damn near destroyed the global economy. And now Mel Watt wants to turn the clock back five years and make the same mistakes all over.

What is the intent of the fees that were scheduled to go into effect in March of 2014? The goal was to increase the costs of borrowing from F/F in the hope that private lenders would come into the mortgage market and take business away from F/F. The DeMarco plan was to shrink F/F over time, and get D.C. out of the mortgage business. His actions were consistent with his mandate – minimize taxpayer risks. Demarco's words:

 

"those fees should rise in order to allow private investors, which target a higher rate of return, to compete."

 

So this frames the political debate. The liberal side of the equation wants to subsidize the mortgage market and exclude private capital. They want to do this to achieve social objectives of home ownership and to make a small step toward wealth redistribution. Lofty and admirable goals. But the tradeoff is that F/F will get bigger and more dominant in the mortgage business. Their role in the economy will expand, not contract – and the USA is once again opening the door for another crisis. A crisis that will work completely contrary to the stated goals of leveling the economic playing field (as it did in 2008).

With Watt taking over, the die is cast. FHFA, Fannie and Freddie are turning a corner and headed in a new (old) direction. When Watt takes over on January 6 we will see a bunch of new measures that will confirm the change in strategy. Many will cheer those efforts. It will mean a bigger role for F/F. It means the USA is doing a u-turn back to 2008. And it means that someday we will have a problem again.

 

Note:

It's not only liberals who hated DeMarco. Those who speculated in Fannie and Freddie common and preferred shares did too. DeMarco passed a rule (no votes anywhere) that 100% of F/F's income would go to the government and not be used to pay off the borrowings that occurred in the bailout. DeMarco's policy is now subject to suits from various hedge funds. DeMarco's action put the holders of F/F stock behind a huge wall. In theory, those shares are worthless, as F/F were on a glide path to be wound-down to nothing.

Watt can't deliver on his promises to those who got him his new job and at the same time continue with a plan to shutter F/F. If the companies do have a different future with Watt running the show, does that mean that the pref stock has a future too?

These are the actors on this stage:

 

The Speculators:

carlyle

JP

The Carlyle Group prepares to launch its IPO

 

How do the specs feel about Watt?

 

images

 

 

The Good Guys??

 

WATT

 

&

 

CUMMINGS

 

Talk about strange bedfellows – this one takes the cake. I wonder who will prevail in the end??

 

gregory-maiofis-1

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Mz_1Y7f4bxc/story01.htm Bruce Krasting

The Hidden Motives Behind The Federal Reserve Taper

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

The Hidden Motives Behind The Federal Reserve Taper

“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank… sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” – Carroll Quigley, member of the Council on Foreign Relations

If one wishes to truly understand the actions behind private Federal Reserve policy, one must come to terms with a fundamental reality – everything the Fed does it does for a reason, and the most apparent reasons are not always the primary reasons. If you think that the Fed simply acts on impulsive stupidity or hubris, then you haven’t a clue what is going on. If you think the Fed only does what it does in order to hide the numerous negative aspects of our current economy, then you only know half the story. If you think the Fed does not have a plan, then you are sorely mistaken…

Central Bankers and their political proponents espouse a globalist ideology, meaning, they are internationalists in their orientation and motivations. They do not have loyalties to any particular country. They do not take an oath to any particular constitution. They do not have empathy for any particular culture or social experiment. They have their own subculture, with their own “values”, and their own social hierarchy. They are a kind of “tribe” or “sect”; a cult,if you will, that views itself as superior to all others. This means that when the central bankers that run the Fed act, they only act with the intention to support and promote globalization, not the best interests of America and Americans.

The process of globalization REQUIRES the dissolution of the U.S. economy as it exists today. Period. There is no way around it. America can no longer remain a superpower in the face of what globalists call “harmonization”. The dollar can no longer maintain its petro-currency status or its world reserve status if total centralization under a new global currency is to be achieved. Globalists believe that America must be sacrificed on the altar of “progress”, and diminished into a mere enclave, a feudal colony of a greater global system. The globalists at the Fed are no different.

Once this driving philosophy is understood, the final conclusion is obvious – the Fed exists to destroy the U.S. financial system and the U.S. currency mechanism. That is what they are here for.

This is why the dollar has lost 98% of its value since the Fed was established in 1913. This is why the Fed deliberately engineered the derivatives bubble crisis through the implementation of artificially low interest rates. This is why their response to the crisis was to create yet another massive bubble in stocks and bonds through QE stimulus. This is why the Fed is cutting stimulus today.

How does the taper play into the long running program of dollar destruction and globalization? Let’s take a look…

The Multifaceted Taper Strategy

In my article ‘Is The Fed Ready To Cut America’s Fiat Life Support’, and my article ‘Expect Devastating Global Economic Changes In 2014’, I predicted that a Fed taper was highly likely. Central banks almost always implant policy shift rumors into the mainstream media a few months before they implement them. They did this for TARP, for QE1, QE2, QE3, and the Taper. In fact, the Fed spent the better part of the past quarter conditioning investors to the idea of stimulus cuts, so I was not at all surprised when they followed through.

The Fed has, of course, now announced a $10 billion QE reduction just in time for Christmas and the 100th anniversary of the privately run institution. In the past, I have pointed out the tendency of central banks to enforce detrimental policy changes while the government, the economy and/or the bank itself is in the midst of a major transition. The Fed’s taper announcement comes just in time for the end of Ben Bernanke’s term as chairman, and the expected nomination of Janet Yellen.

This is done, I believe, because it provides an opportunity to divert blame for a crisis event they know is on the horizon. If attention is ever focused on the Fed specifically for a market downturn or bond disaster triggered by the ever present dollar bubble, Yellen can simply blame the QE policies of Bernanke (who will be long gone), while promising that her “new” policies will surely repair the damage. This placates the public and buys the central bankers time to do even MORE damage.

The taper itself is not just a “head fake”, however. It is a far more complex action. Tapering provides a method of psychologically distancing the Federal Reserve from the consequences of market movements. The banksters are essentially proclaiming to the public that their work is done, they have saved the economy, and now they are moving on, be it only $10 billion at a time. Whatever happens from here on is “not their fault”.

Most alternative analysts expected no taper of QE, and for good reason. While the mainstream touts the propaganda of economic recovery, independent financial experts understand that little to nothing was actually accomplished by the bailouts. Virtually no stimulus was absorbed in a localized way by mainstreet business. Real unemployment counting U-6 measurements still stands at around 20%. Real estate markets and home prices have a received a small boost, which at first glance appears positive until one examines who is actually buying; namely big banks and international investment firms snapping up properties only to reissue them on the market as rentals:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/behind-the-rise-in-house-prices-wall-street-buyers/?_r=0

U.S. holiday retail sales and annual retail sales have been the weakest since 2009:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-30/black-friday-traffic-seen-thinning-as-stores-open-early.html

The only thing that QE ultimately accomplished was a spectacular rise in stocks through direct manipulation, which Fed agents like Alan Greenspan and Richard Fisher now openly admit to. The problem is, while gamblers in equities proudly boast about the Fed induced bull run in the Dow and how much money they have made, they remain oblivious to the underlying cost of the charade. Market investors have been enriched, yes, but little do they know that stock legitimacy is about to be sacrificed.

The price to earnings ratio of stocks (the market value of stocks versus what they SHOULD be valued according to the actual earnings of the companies listed) in the S&P 500 today stands at around 15, which is the highest it has been since before the 2008 market crash. Mainstream economists attempt to dismiss the issue by using a 15 year average while claiming that the P/E ratio in 2013 is mild compared to the tech bubble of the late 90’s. What they don’t seem to grasp is that the market of the past four to five years is an entirely different animal compared to 15 years ago.

Stocks in general have received considerable support through purchases by Fed bolstered banks and the Fed itself, creating an atmosphere of artificial demand for equities using QE fiat injections. Though no full audit of the bailouts exists (TARP is the only measure audited so far), it is projected that the banking sector alone has garnered tens of trillions in Fed fiat, which they have used to bolster their otherwise debt ridden holdings. It is only logical to expect that this capital tsunami has been used by numerous companies as a way to present false earnings. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley all reported substantial profits for 2009 while at the same time reporting massive liabilities caused by the derivatives crash so that they could collect on the bailout bonanza.

So which one is it? Are companies making profits, or are they wallowing in insurmountable debt while presenting government stimulus as a form of profit?

What the Fed and corporate banks have done is create a market in which neither earnings, nor stock values can be trusted. The fact that the P/E ratio is higher than it has been since 2008 despite this manipulation should concern anyone with any sense.

Worst of all, the Fed’s monetization of U.S. Treasury debt has only expanded while foreign investment in long term debt has contracted. With our official national debt growing by at least $1 trillion per year, our country cannot continue to function without an ever increasing amount of foreign investment, or, Federal Reserve printing. The Fed cannot make cuts to QE if our system is to survive (if you want to call it survival), the Fed must expand QE forever, or at least until the dollar implodes due to hyperinflation.

So then, why has the taper been introduced at all? No one wants it. The government shouldn’t want it. Investors certainly don’t want it. Our economy is utterly dependent on the opposite. What purpose does it serve?

The assumption has always been that the Fed wants to keep the system afloat. I submit that things have changed. I submit that the Fed no longer wishes to prop up our fiscal structure, or at least, no longer wishes to be seen as propping it up. I submit that the Fed is not pursuing dollar destruction through standard hyperinflation, but rather, they are preparing the U.S. for default, which also will result in currency implosion.

The Taper Parallels

“It must not be felt that the heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up, and who were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. “ – Carroll Quigley, Tragedy And Hope

Initial shock over the taper scenario has not sunk into the markets yet (as Zero Hedge points out, the last time a major central bank cut stimulus measures to a dependent country, stocks rallied, then crashed within months). Few people see much difference between $75 billion per month and $85 billion per month, but the size of the cuts is not really the issue. Rather, it is the Fed’s act of fading into the background that should concern us.

The taper announcement parallels perfectly with the accelerating debate over the U.S. debt ceiling, and I do not think this is at all a coincidence. Tapering seems inconceivable to many, but for the Fed it makes perfect sense if the goal of the globalists is to generate a default scenario while diverting blame. I believe that Americans are being prepared psychologically for just such an event. Already, the White House is warning that government funding will essentially disappear by the end of February:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE9BF1FW20131219

The expectation fostered by the mainstream media is that a debt fight similar to the October theater will not happen again. I agree. I believe the next debate will be much worse. The vast majority will assume that the “can” will be kicked down the road again, and they may be right, but given the Fed’s behavior, and given that they have begun to taper despite what appears logical, many people may be in for a shock when our government also suddenly decides one day soon to buck assumptions and default rather than prolong the pain.

The full spectrum failure of Obamacare only adds excuse and incentive. There is no longer a legislative centerpiece rationale for further spending. Obama’s approval rating is at historic lows for any president. The stage has been set for the most epic of fake political battles.

The Left and Right leadership, at the top of the pyramid, are nothing more than flunkies for the global elite. If globalists have decided that it is time to apply the final death blows to the dollar, default would be the quickest and most efficient way, and political puppetry can easily make it happen. The calamity would be blamed on “partisan bickering” and “government gridlock”, or even the inefficiency of “democracy”. The Fed, with its taper in place and its fake recovery established, would be presented as the only “sane” institution at America’s disposal.

Perhaps at this point even more pervasive QE programs would recommence, perhaps not. At bottom, though, the taper is not a peripheral issue. It is an action at the center of a much more elaborate process, an action that seems to have been undertaken in preparation for a larger event. The next year is shaping up to be the most chaotic since the debt crisis began in 2008, and as the situation progresses, the subtleties of the Federal Reserve and the international banks that back it must not go unnoticed, or in the end, unpunished.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Hi00kjSXY9Y/story01.htm Tyler Durden

FX Outlook: Thin Conditions Dominate

The lack of participation in the global capital markets, in general, and the foreign exchange market, in particular, can make for erratic price action punctuating an eerie calm.  Order flow and position adjustment (passive, as in triggering of stops, or more active ahead of year end) may exert greater influence than is often the case. 

 

Here is an overview on how we see the technical condition of the dollar against a selected group of foreign currencies into the year end. 

 

Euro:  After posting a big reversal day on December 18 in response to the Fed’s tapering, the euro moved lower.  In the following two sessions, (December 19-20), the euro slipped another half cent to test the initial retracement objective of the advance from early November (~$1.2755) that is found near $1.3615.  The euro failed to make a new session low despite the sharp upward revision in Q3 US GDP (4.1% vs 3.6% and 2.6% initially).  A break would initially signal potential into the $1.3525-50 area.  On the top side, a move back above $1.3720 spur a move toward the recent highs, just above $1.3800.   The MACDs have turned lower, but the RSI appears to be curling higher. 

 

Dollar Index:    Although this basket is heavily weighted toward the euro and Europe more generally, it has outperformed the euro due to the weakness of the yen and Canadian dollar.  The US dollar’s upside momentum since the FOMC meeting faded as the Dollar Index hit the 61.8% retracement (~82.82) of the losses since Nov 8 high of almost 81.50 and corresponds with the tend line down off the Nov highs.  The RSI and MACDs are move constructive than in the euro and the 5-day moving average is set to cross above the 20-day average in the coming days.   That said, the price action before the weekend and the weak close cautions against chasing the market higher.

 

Yen:    The yen lost a little less than 1% against the dollar last week, falling to new five year lows in the aftermath of the Fed’s tapering decision.  The RSI and MACDs, though did not confirm the price action by making new highs.  The price action ahead of the weekend was not very encouraging.  Key support is see near the 20-day moving average, which the dollar has not traded below since Nov 8.  It comes in near JPY102.80 (rising around 15 pips a day).  

 

Sterling:     The technical signals are not strong for sterling.  It has moved above the $1.6400 level several times this month, but has managed to close above there only once (Dec 10).  Support is seen in the $1.6220-40 area.  Inclined to favor the upside, but risk-reward considerations are not very attractive at current levels.  

 

Swiss franc:   The dollar bounced off the lows that had been carved out over the last 10 days or so just below CHF0.8850.  However, it ran out of seem near CHF0.9000.    The RSI is turning down, but the MACDs are have crossed to the upside.   We inclined to see a test on CHF0.8900 in the days ahead; yet there are better risk-reward opportunities.  Moreover, even in the best of times, the Swiss franc is not always very liquid and over the holiday period this will be especially true.  

 

Canadian dollar:   The US dollar has tried to established a foothold above CAD1.07 a handful of times this month, but has failed to do so.  Although the greenback made new three-year highs against the Canadian dollar, the RSI and MACDs have failed to confirm the price action, warning of the of the risk of a near-term pullback.  Initial support for the US dollar will likely be encountered in the CAD1.0625-50 area.  A break of CAD1.0560 is needed to signal a deeper correction.  

 

Australian dollar:  Before the weekend and helped by position squaring the Australian dollar posted its biggest advance in nearly 2-months.  While the RSI has turned higher, the MACDs have yet to turn.  A move above $0.8970-$0.9000 would help lift the technical tone.  Yet, watch the 20-day moving average, which comes in near $0.9040, and has kept counter-trend up moves in check since early November.  

 

Mexican peso:   The near-term technical outlook for the peso is not clear.  Neither the RSI or MACDs are generating any strong signals and the price action remains range-bound.  The dollar has not been above MXN13.10 or below MXN12.80 for nearly three weeks.  

 

For 2013, our “big trade” was buying the peso for Australian dollars.  It worked out solely because of the Aussie leg (-14%) as the peso was little changed (-0.6%).  This year, we are going to stick with the long peso leg, but switch from the Aussie short to a short Canadian dollar position.   Currently the cross is trading above MXN12.12.  The MXN12.00 is initial support and then MXN11.85.  However, if our fundamental and technical analysis is correct, we think there is potential toward MXN11.20 in 2014.

 

Observations on speculative positioning in selected CME currency futures:  

 

1.  Net and gross position adjustments among speculative participants was minimal in the reporting period covering the days leading up to the FOMC meeting.

 

2. The clearest tendency was to add to gross short positions, except for the euro and sterling, where they were trimmed.

 

3.  Gross short Canadian dollar positions continue to grow, though the increase in the net short positions was more a function of longs being cut than new shorts building. The 65.5k net short position is the largest in seven years and just behind the record in late 2006.   In any event, the gross short position of 90.6k contracts is second only to the yen, where the gross  shorts stand at 152.4k contracts. 


    

< br/>

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/yA8zsBO26eU/story01.htm Marc To Market

What's Next For The US Prison System?

It’s no secret the US is facing a dilemma when it comes to its prison system. With the largest prison population and incarceration rate in the World, the US is facing severe overcrowding and more spending on prisons than education. What does the future hold for the US prison system?

 

Boston University Online Masters in Criminal Justice

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/3-L1wW1fR-w/story01.htm Tyler Durden