Category: zerohedge

Submitted by StreetCry via the MarkStCyr.com blog,

There probably isn’t an over used phrase thrown across the media landscape than, “It’s different this time.”

One can’t look at the financial markets, the political stage, and more without shaking ones head. Nothing seems to make sense. Yet if one wants to lazily answer, “It’s different this time.” Things become crystal clear.

Water now seems to run uphill. The definition of words no longer mean what they once did. (we’re still marveling on what is – is) Free society means the loss of only a few freedoms per year, as opposed to everything at once. Work is a bad thing however, if someone else goes to work and pay for your things – then that’s good. You can keep your plan if you like your plan – but if we don’t like it – well – you can’t. The Federal Reserve would never monetize the debt – however if you’re a preferred dealer in the QE (quantitative easing) program – they’ll do it for you. I could go on but for brevity’s sake, I’ll stop there. I believe you get the drift.

These precarious times leave many scratching their heads. It has been (and continues to be) extremely difficult to rationalize exactly what one personally, or business and investing wise should, or should not be doing.

When everything one has both learned through experience or looked back through history for clues now seems irrelevant, or worse – indifferent. It truly makes one question one’s sanity as you wrestle daily with the over whelming feeling that you just may be – the only sane person in the asylum. And that is not a comforting resolution to one’s conclusions. For it begs the rebuttal: Then who’s truly the crazy one?

I was asked the other day why I continue to make arguments for caution where some people at times are having a field day with the equivalent of kicking me in the shins as the financial markets rise higher, and higher, to ever higher heights? It’s a good question and I thought I’d extrapolate more on what or why I’m seeing blatant warning signs others can’t or, refuse to.

Let me express why my observations cause this with the following line: When everyone is on the band wagon – except the band. You had better take notice.

First, let me give some background as to why I have standing to make such arguments.

In addition to my business acumen, I cut my teeth and actually traded my own money (not some form of 401K account – a true margin account) in the futures markets and more both before, during, and after the financial market meltdown of 2009. A period where; if you momentarily dared to turn away from your screens to just shred a document, your positions could be up six figures (as in making money) or down the same. (as in lost)

So turbulent and crazy this period of time was, many had to shake their heads to snap out of their contemplations of; “Hmmmm?” after seeing a Depends® commercial roll across the TV. And every single one almost to a person of the so-called “smart crowd” paraded across the financial media landscape not only didn’t see it coming – they were patently dumb struck on why it was happening, and what one should do about it. (People think these commercials are placed because of age demographics. After 2009, I started to question that argument. It now seemed to speak to a far greater group. But I digress.)

During that time, I have traded with open positions when the markets has been “Lock limit down.” For those not familiar with the term it basically means the markets are halted or shut down as to try to stop the panic.

I have been in situations (and know of many other veteran traders) where positions were unable to be closed as to stop the bleeding – as one watched the account balances disappear, or worse  – go negative. Not to mention the frustration when the inability to get hold of brokers to alter or close positions when platforms freeze, while account balances swing wildly out of control.

There are people who’ll line up to tell me about how they currently have this or that hedged. How X will take care of Y and so forth. All sounds good, the rationale appears sound, but experience will tell you, a backup plan for the markets is insufficient and foolhardy at best. You need a backup plan – to your backup plan – with an additional backup plan. Along with the ability and faith you can execute it in a panic situation. Period. And that’s just for starters.

You haven’t truly traded volatile markets till you’ve stood and stared doe-eyed watching the money in your account as it spirals downward out of control with seemingly no way to stop it. There are ways, but very few know, never mind could execute in the moment. I would venture to say based on people I’ve spoken or listened to, 4 out of 5 are ill-equipped for any real shock to the markets. Especially at where they are currently. However it’s exactly this crowd that is the most vocal using the guise of “The Fed’s got their back.” as if bad things now can’t happen. So why worry? Because – (you guessed it) “It’s different this time.”

I know and try to relate first hand stories of veteran market traders worth millions wiped out in near moments and far, far more. (Never-mind by their own hand or trades just ask a victim of the MF Global™ scandal) Yet, it continually falls on deaf ears as one talks to people who just believe the markets are, “ducky.”

Many (if not most) either just started handling their self-directed 401K accounts (which is the way to do it in my opinion) over the last few years. To them the tone and tenor of anything market related falls into the category of, “Everything of the past is old news.” “The Fed’s got their back,” and more. I’m usually left to myself just shaking my head.

Personally, I have read more books on technical analysis, market psychology, option studies, probability studies, volatility strategies by all the best known authors, along with even more brilliant yet, less heralded ones. I have put money to work via investment advisers, as well as real-time trading strategy/execution services. Yet, if I question someones thinking or thoughts on the markets? I get a look like, “Yeah sure. What do you know. Can’t you see? It’s different this time!” And once again, the conversation just about ends there.

I’m begging to feel that in some strange way they may have a point. But – it’s for all the wrong reasons. And here’s why…

A few things (although very big) have changed over the past 5 years since the great market collapse. These are in no specific order of importance.

First: The advent of government involvement within the financial markets is unprecedented in its history. It can not be understated the influx of Trillions of dollars via the Federal Reserves QE programs, and the levered effects that influence has brought to bear. We don’t have a shred of true market forces that warrant such levels. (Please save the emails. You’ll do better with CNBC® than me.)

Who cares if war, or anything else pops up on the horizon which not that long ago (say before QE?) at the very least would cause the markets to take at the very least – a defensive position. (Remember Greece?) Nope, not in the least.

As one nation after another with its cities on fire, citizens battling in the streets, cries of defaulting on sovereign debt, export/import disruptions, and more. Since the intervention of the QE programs; as long as the spigot remains open – the world and its crises are mere footnotes.

Just look at what is taking place today in the Ukraine. Quite possibly the greatest global uncertainty wrench into the gears of the world at large. Russia puts boots on the ground, test fires an ICBM to heighten threats. North Korea test fires more missiles during this same period. At the same time our largest holder of debt and largest trading partner China publicly sides with Russia’s invasion calculations, not to mention their newest economic figures have been awful (and they are notorious in fudging them as to make them better than they truly are)  and the markets reaction? Not only higher, but Investor Intelligence™ surveys show that traders are the least caring of a market hiccup in over 15 years!

That’s the equivalent of more unicorn and rainbow thinkers in the market today than the dot-com bubble! Absolutely mind-boggling in my view.

Back all this into an algo-filled, machine dominated, high frequency trading environment and you can make the rational argument that the once ,”free” financial markets. Are now truly different this time.

For if the machines only care about the numbers – will act on those numbers – and you only supply the numbers the way the machines care about. Well, you do in theory have control, right?

Well yes but (and it’s a very big but) till you don’t. Then what?

And that’s where my arguments still fall. Again, far too many whether they be entrepreneurs, traders, business executives, and more are not calculating, “what ifs?” That is a recipe for disaster in my view.

To show how far we’ve come from reality all one needs to do is to look at how or what the media will or will not cover. Remember, Black Monday? That was back in 1989 when the markets crashed. Over, and over, and over this was reported on anniversary after anniversary. Now? For all intents and purposes, it passes quieter than two ships passing in the night.

I bring this point to the forefront for the sole purpose of pointing out there was an anniversary this week. It was the 5th anniversary of the financial markets collapse. The worst since the era that brought about The Great Depression. And if I didn’t bring it to your attention now, many of you probably didn’t even know it. The near mention of this event had more in line with the Harry Potter character of “You know who” as in “He that shall not be named.” The 2009 financial collapse now seems to be of the same ilk.

Again, as to push the point I made earlier on things that leave people scratching their heads. Black Monday (a far less eventful matter as compared with the final declines of 2009) was headlined, spoke of, theorized, along with a great whaling and the gnashing of teeth – every anniversary. And what about this one? The silence was deafening.

Here’s the rub – we all know the unemployment #’s are worthless. We know they’re currently manipulated to the point of absurdity. We know that GDP (gross domestic product) trade deficits, and much, much more are now running inline with as much controversy as to their validity as those we get from the Chinese government. Accounting standards and the reporting of earnings are once again venturing on comedic.
(As in an a company lost money according to general accounting, but based on Non-general? The place is rolling in dough!”)

Fact or fiction seems to no longer matter anymore. It’s now blatantly obvious: spin a tale no matter how large for if it sticks – it’s now considered fact. And if they don’t believe the first lie – just readjust or recalculate the formulations to provide something they will believe. It’s becoming near maddening.

So I guess it truly is, “different this time.”

Just what happens when it’s realized that puddle on the floor isn’t from unicorn tears but from someone who didn’t see a Depends commercial is now anyone’s guess.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1k7KThs Tyler Durden

Deja vu all over again…

 

Source: Sunday Funnies

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ehzhUn Tyler Durden

Investors can’t bail fast enough on emerging markets at the moment. And rightly so, given the potential for further problems as I highlighted in last week’s post, Emerging Market Banking Crises Are Next. But the indiscriminate sell-off of emerging markets also opens up some potential opportunities. Asia Confidential thinks South Korea stands out as one such opportunity.

South Korea isn’t really an emerging market though. It’s a US$1.1 trillion economy, the 15th largest in the world. With populations above 50 million, the economy ranks 7th globally. Nonetheless, those in charge of indices such as MSCI still classify South Korea as an emerging market. Which should make you question the entire notion of “emerging markets”, as I do.

That aside, South Korea has tremendous long-term prospects. It’s an open economy with a robust democracy. It’s a world-class manufacturer which has every chance of becoming the next Germany. It has a highly educated and hard working labor force. Unlike its former coloniser, Japan, it’s shown the ability to adapt and reinvent itself. And importantly, the prospect of reunification with North Korea in the not-too distant future would prove a tremendous boon for the South and drive an unprecedented investment boom.

The short-term outlook is bright too. Unlike many other emerging markets, South Korea runs a current account surplus and therefore isn’t vulnerable to capital outflows from QE tapering. It also never had the credit boom that other Asian countries experienced. Significantly, it’s highly exposed, via exports, to economic recoveries in the US and Europe (the latter being more dubious than the former).

To top it off, South Korea is the cheapest country in Asia with a 2014 price to earnings ratio (PER) of just 8.8x. There are a number of world-class companies in South Korea trading at just 6x earnings. Bargains in plain sight, you might say.

Emerging market, really?

To get a sense of the long-term opportunity, it’s important to understand a brief bit of history. South Korea tends to get lost in the headlines of much larger neighbours, China and Japan. Only the threat of North Korean conflict or music poking fun at rich people (Gangnam style) occasionally breaks this trend. But the success story of South Korea is on par with its neighbours.

As many of you would know, South Korea was brutally occupied by Japan from 1910-1945. Post-World War Two, it was split into North and South Korea by the US and Soviet Union. The Cold War was the central driver to the Korean War soon after. The 1953 armistice signed at the conclusion of the war split the peninsula along a demilitarised zone. Technically, South and North Korea are still at war. Some 2 million troops patrol the demilitarised zone, making it the most heavily-guarded border in the world.

Fast forward to 1961 and the rise of Park Ching-hee to the leadership. Chung-hee is known for being the most important ruler in South Korea’s history.

When he came to power, South Korea’s GDP per capita was just US$72. Needless to say, a very poor country. Chung-hee drove South Korea into the modern age with often brutal efficiency. He did this through export-led industrialisation and oversaw the creation of the now-famous conglomerates known as chaebol. Along with Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, South Korea became known as one of the four “Asian Tiger” economies.

During the 1970s though, economic growth slowed as the investment-led model ran out of steam. And resentment grew towards Chung-hee’s authoritarian rule. The President was subsequently assassinated in 1979.

South Korea recovered and, along with many other Asian countries, experienced rapid growth in the early-to-mid 1990s. When exploding foreign debts led to the collapse of Asian currencies, South Korea had to go to the IMF for a record US$58 billion bail-out package. This was humiliating to a proud nation.

South Korea handled the Asian crisis in a very different way to other countries, however. People in countries elsewhere moved their money to the Cayman Islands for protection. In contrast, South Koreans banded together, determined to pay off the debts. People queued up for hours to donate jewelry to the cause.

Unlike a number of other Asian countries, South Korea also let companies fail instead of bailing them out. Some 40% of the biggest companies were allowed to go under. This included multinationals such as Daewoo. Staggeringly, the IMF debt was repaid by 2001 and South Korea’s economy was back on track.

South Korea’s adaptability under dire circumstances stands in stark contrast to others. Its once colonial master, Japan, hasn’t shown the same attributes since 1990. And Taiwan, another former Japan colony, has also failed to remake itself post the crisis.

From 1998, the chaebol brought in professional managers to oversee operations, while the founding families retained control over strategic decisions. They moved fast to build plants in China to give them a low-cast labor advantage. They outspent rivals on research and development. And they weren’t afraid to expand abroad and take on the big boys.

Hyundai is a case in point. It first entered the North American car market in 1986. Funnily enough, its cars initially met with some success as Americans mistook them for Honda cars (they had similar logos). Post that, Hyundai’s cars became a bit of a joke, known for poor design and numerous quality issues.

Instead of retreating though, Hyundai doubled down. In 1998, it offered a ten-year warranty, more than twice its competitors. The move was laughed at by many. By it proved a game-changer for the company and the industry.

In 2005, Hyundai opened its first American plant in Alabama. US competitors dismissed the move, given the enormous problems they were having with high-cost union labor forces in Detroit at the time. The difference was that Hyundai didn’t have these same labor issues. And the plant has now become one of the most efficient in the US.

Turn to today and Hyundai is one of the world’s top-5 car companies. Though it’s certainly not the only South Korean company to have proved itself on the world stage.

Challenges today

South Korea does resemble some other emerging markets in one respect: it relies extensively on an export-led economic model. Exports account for 56% of GDP. And chaebols account for 82% of GDP.

It’s obvious that the country needs to become less reliant on exports and look to the next drivers of economic growth. Those drivers are likely to come from the still undeveloped services sector. 

South Korea’s leaders realise the urgency of the task. Recently, President Park Guen-hye (daughter of Park Chung-hee) outlined her so-called 474 plan: 4% economic growth, 70% employment rate and average per-capita income of US$40,000.

Simply put, the plan involves the following:

• Shift tax benefits from chaebol manufacturers to start-ups
• Rein in state-owned enterprises
• Provide support to venture capital
• Cut back on regulations in a variety of sectors including health and education to promote competition
• Incentivise employers to hire more young people and women

This isn’t the first time that South Korea has tried to reduce its reliance on exports. In the early 2000s, it granted tax breaks to credit card users in order to spur domestic spending. Predictably, consumers got carried away and delinquencies on credit cards reached 30%. Companies had to be bailed out and economic growth stalled by 2003.

Corporate deleveraging and government restrictions on business borrowing since the 1997 crisis have also encourage bank lending to households. That borrowing has mostly found its way into real estate. Consequently, household debt has grown about 2x GDP since the crisis. And household debt in South Korea is now around 150% of household disposable incomes. 

The risks from this debt are limited though. More than 70% of the debt is owed by the top two quintiles by income, which have twice as many assets as debt. Also, South Korea has imposed strict 40% loan-to-value ratios on property purchases. Finally, the central bank has forced some lenders to write off 40% of the value of personal loans, reducing the risks of a consumer debt bust.

However, the challenges of rebalancing the economy and finding new sources of growth remain. Given its track record of adaptability, Asia Confidential is confident that South Korea can reinvent itself again.

2014 economic outlook

So what about the short-term outlook for the economy? Here, the prospects seem reasonable.

Unlike many emerging markets, South Korea consistently runs current account surpluses and therefore isn’t susceptible to capital outflows from QE tapering. It also hasn’t had a credit boom over the past 3-4 years and thus isn’t vulnerable to a hangover on this front.

Prospects for growth look ok too. South Korea’s still large dependence on exports may play in its favour as the country is geared to any recovery in the US and EU. While on paper the US and EU only account for 20% of Korean exports, the number is actually much larger as these are the ultimate destinations for the bulk of Korean exports to emerging markets.

South Korean exports to the US and EU bottomed in 2012 and have steadily improved. Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecasts 8% growth in exports to the US and EU in 2014.

South Korea is highly correlated to US growth. Every 100 basis point change in US GDP growth impacts South Korean GDP growth by 80 basis points. 

In addition, deflationary fears in South Korea appear misguided. Inflation is likely to return to the 2% level this year after bottoming at 1.3% last year. Signs of rising inflation can be seen in core inflation, which rose almost 3% quarter-on-quarter, in seasonally-adjusted terms, over the last several months. Any rate hikes though aren’t likely until the end of the year, at the earliest.

Lastly, the housing market is showing signs of life after five years in the doldrums. Transaction volumes and prices improved in the second half of last year. Volumes could reach 80,000 units/month in the first half, the third-highest level since 2008. That said, high household debt should limit the extent of the property recovery.

In sum, the near-term outlook isn’t outstanding. But it’s better than most.

Long-term powerhouse

The long-term prospects for South Korea look brighter, for three reasons: 

1. Its already world-class companies are likely to move aggressively up value chains to find new niches to dominate. South Korea is well known for its cars and electronics. It’s also found success in less sexy industries such as shipbuilding too. The top three global shipbuilders are from South Korea. I not only expect continued gains in these type of industries, but new ones too. A highly educated workforce, high investment in R&D and a proven ability to compete and adapt should ensure this.
2. The aim to boost service industries should pay dividends and provide the next leg of growth for South Korea. Skeptics will point to South Korean historical failures on this front. But it’s increasingly clear that South Korea realises the risks of the country being left behind if it doesn’t rebalance the economy.
3. The real potential kicker is North Korea. Yes, North Korea is exceedingly poor but it has a disciplined population of 24 million and immense natural resources. Put this together with South Korea’s capital pool and management capability and you have an irresistible combination. It would likely produce an investment bonanza of unprecedented proportions. South Korea is already preparing for unification by keeping its debt low to absorb the huge costs in rebuilding the North. Note also, the President is pushing for unification, recently saying:  

“Unification will allow the Korean economy to take a fresh leap forward and inject great vitality and energy. People would even sing “We dream of unification in our dreams””.

If I’m right about the bright long-term prospects for South Korea, the so-called “Korean discount” should fade. For the uninitiated, markets continue to impose a discount on the valuation of South Korean stocks given the often murky operating structures and financials of the large companies. 

This view is somewhat outdated given the substantial improvements in business structures and accounting over the past decade. Further improvements should eventually see the discount disappear, providing further upside to Korean stocks.

Valuations stack up

Price is ultimately what matters with any investment. And on this front, South Korea looks attractive. It’s the cheapest market in Asia, trading at just 8.8x this year’s earnings, a 24% discount to Asia ex-Japan’s 11.6x PER. Consensus forecasts 13% earnings growth in 2014, versus 12% for the Asian region.

If you dig a little more, there are some exceedingly cheap valuations for world-class companies. For instance, Kia Motors is trading at 5.9x 2014 PER. Samsung Electronics is also priced at just 6.9x earnings. 

Some of the domestically-focused large caps are also priced at levels not seen in other markets. For instance, KB Financial, a consumer bank, trades at a 40% discount to tangible book value (net asset value, in other words). Yes, return on equity at KB Financial is a low 6% but if this improves from abnormally depressed levels, then the discount to book value should diminish too.

Potential risks

No investment is without risks and these risks need to weighed against the potential rewards. I see three key risks for South Korean stocks:

1. Any recovery stalls in developed markets. The US recovery is painfully slow, but it’s better than elsewhere. Particularly the EU, where deflationary risks remain. If economies in these regions lurch downward again, South Korea would be disproportionately impacted.
2. The yen is also a big risk. Regular readers will know that I foresee a much lower yen in the medium term given the Abe government’s insane money printing policies. Given a lower yen, Japanese exporters are expected to provide much stiffer competition to their South Korean counterparts going forward.
3. The obvious long-term risk is North Korea. A messy and violent reunification with the South would seriously dent future economic prospects.

In my view, the first and second risks are already partially if not fully factored into South Korean valuations. If these things don’t eventuate, or not to the extent envisaged, then the upside for stocks is pretty clear.

AC Speed Read

– South Korea stands out as a buying opportunity amid the indiscriminate emerging markets sell-off.

– The country’s short-term economic prospects are positive given its sound financial position reduces risks from QE tapering. Also, its export-led economy has significant exposure to the US recovery.

– Long-term, South Korea manufacturing prowess could turn it into the next Germany. There’s also the prospect of reunification with North Korea, which would prove an investment boon to the South.

– Valuations are cheap as well, with South Korea trading on just 8.8x 2014 earnings. World-class companies such as Kia are priced at just 6x earnings.

– Potential risks include a slowdown in developed market economies and a lower yen making Japanese exporters more competitive vis-a-vis their South Korean counterparts.

This post was originally published at Asia Confidential: 
http://ift.tt/1k7CsTi

  

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ehzeaX Asia Confidential

Submitted by Mark Thornton via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

President Barack Obama has recently released his budget in which he calls for an “end of austerity.” This is an amazing statement from a president whose government has spent the highest percentage of GDP in history and added more to the national debt than all past presidents combined. What must he mean by austerity?

There are demonstrations around the world over austerity on an almost daily basis. It is condemned as an evil poison for tough economic times while others tout it as the elixir for economic depressions.

The president’s rejection of austerity represents the Keynesian view which completely rejects austerity in favor of the “borrow and spend” — increase aggregate demand — approach to recession. What he really is rejecting is the infinitesimal cutbacks in the rate of spending increases and the political roadblocks to new spending programs.

While the 2009-2012 budgets have been relatively flat, they are still more than 15 percent higher than in 2008 and 75 percent higher than in the previous decade. This four year leap in spending was financed with a $5 trillion increase in the national debt. No austerity here!

The type of austerity that gets the most worldwide press attention on a daily basis is that promoted by economists at the International Monetary Fund. This “austerian” approach involves cutbacks in government services and tax increases on the beleaguered public in order to, at all costs, repay the government’s corrupt creditors. This pro-bankster approach is what generates a massive amount of media attention and sometimes violent demonstrations.

Austrian School economists reject both the Keynesian stimulus approach and the IMF-style high-tax, pro-bankster approach as counterproductive. Although “Austrians” are often lumped in with “Austerians,” Austrian School economists support real austerity. Real austerity involves cutting government budgets by reducing salaries, employee benefits, and retirement benefits. It also involves selling government assets and even repudiating government debt. Instead of increasing taxes, the Austrian approach advocates decreasing taxes.

Despite all the hoopla in countries like Greece, there is no real austerity except in the countries of Eastern Europe. For example, Latvia is Europe’s most austere country and also one of the fastest growing economies. Estonia implemented an austerity policy that depended largely on cuts in government salaries. In contrast there simply is no significant austerity in most of Western Europe or the U.S. As Professor Philipp Bagus explains, “the problem of Europe (and the United States) is not too much but too little austerity — or its complete absence.”

Real austerity for individuals means living a highly restricted lifestyle. The best example is the monk who lives on a subsistence-level diet, wears simple clothing, possesses a few basic pieces of furniture, and uses only necessary utensils. His days consist of long hours of work and prayer with no leisure activities and he may not even enjoy indoor heating or plumbing.

Austerity applied to whole countries, is not necessarily so harsh or ascetic. It simply means that the government has to live within its means.

If government were to adopt a thoroughgoing “Libertarian Monk” lifestyle, then the national government would be cut back to only national defense without standing armies and nuclear weapons. The national debt would be wholly repudiated. This would involve certain short-run hardships, although much greater long-run prosperity.

In contrast, the typical austerity policy is not severe. Government employees would be given cuts in wages, benefits, and retirement benefits necessary to balance the budget. The biggest cuts would fall on politicians, appointees, and senior bureaucrats. Given that such cutbacks occur when most everyone is facing cutbacks and hardships and given that government employees are typically very well compensated, it is not unreasonable to expect them to bear most of the burden of an austerity policy.

One particularly promising area for cutbacks is government regulation. Regulation is a burden on taxpayers, discourages entrepreneurship, and makes us less safe. One recent empirical study found that regulation was extremely costly and that “eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually.”

Real austerity actually works best with tax cuts. To help austerity create growth it needs to be understood that certain taxes are highly discouraging to production. Tax cuts on investment and capital in contrast stimulate economic activity and production.

IMF-inspired tax increases make no sense. In hard times, government policies should be guided by the idea of increasing production, not of making production more burdensome via higher taxes. In much the same way, our ascetic monk does not force his duties and burdens on ordinary citizens.

President Obama has also suggested higher taxes (again) this time such as the removal of “tax breaks” for the retired rich. This would be the first step toward robbing our IRAs. Some have even suggested that “austerity” should involve extending existing taxes onto charities and nonprofits. Others have suggested taking away the tax-exempted status of charities and non-profits, which is nothing but a backdoor tax increase. These are some of the dumbest suggestions, especially in economic crises and are not real austerity.

Austerity does not mean, for example, budget cuts that would eliminate garbage collection or shutting down the fire department while leaving the military, education, and the spy state untouched. This is just a form of extortion that does not solve the problem. It only reveals the true nature and intent of those who work in government.

The Keynesian stimulus approach does not work. The IMF-inspired austerian approach also does not work. Only real austerity works. This means cutting government employee incomes, benefits, and retirement benefits. This alone would encourage them to run a tighter ship in the future. Eliminating regulators and regulations, cutting taxes, and selling government assets would all aid in the recovery process.

President Obama and Congress should get busy doing what is best for the economy and the American public instead of enriching themselves and those who feed at the public trough.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1cH2Nrx Tyler Durden

Between China’s dismal trade deficit data (desperately defended by several sell-side strategists proclaiming it’s just lunar new year ‘noise’ – aside from the fact that all the same strategists ‘knew’ the dates and still missed by 6 standard deviations) and the esclalations in Ukraine, it appears ‘confidence’ is a little shaken in the status quo. JPY has opened notably stronger dragging Yen carry trades lower and implying notable losses on the open for stock futures…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1iqCwA8 Tyler Durden

“I do not believe that Crimea will slip out of Russia’s hands,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Fox News this morning adding that there is little chance Ukraine will be able to get back control. When asked in this brief clip “You think Crimea’s gone?” Gates responded clearly, “I do.” Gates then goes on to explain why Obama’s foreign policy didn’t “embolden” Putin and perhaps more importantly defends Obama’s “taking the weekend off in the middle of a crisis” golf trip…

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/PgHAdy Tyler Durden

Just in case the world did not have enough potential geopolitical flashpoints and near-crises, here comes old faithful – the simmering nationalist rivalry between China and Japan, which may have been pushed to the backburner in light of the grand return of Cold War 2.0, but is neither forgotten nor resolved. In fact, recent developments which have seen Japan fully back the US strategy in Ukraine while China has voiced its support for Russia, will probably only enflame the direct tension between the two Asian superpowers. Moments ago we got the latest manifestation of precisely this when Japan scrambled military jets on Sunday to counter three Chinese military planes that flew near Japanese airspace, defence officials said.

From SCMP:

One Y-8 information gathering plane and two H-6 bombers flew over the East China Sea, travelling in international airspace between southern Japanese islands and went to the Pacific Ocean before returning towards China on the same route on Sunday morning, according to a spokesman at the Joint Staff of the Ministry of Defence.

 

“They flow above public seas, and there was no violation of our airspace,” he said, declining to release more details about the incident.

 

Japan and China are locked in a bitter territorial row over islands in the East China Sea administered by Japan as the Senkaku Islands, but which China calls the Diaoyu Islands.

 

Chinese government ships and planes have been seen off the disputed islands numerous times since Japan nationalised them in September 2012, sometimes within the 12 nautical-mile territorial zone.

And then there was the curious case of Libya which threatened on Saturday to bomb a North Korean-flagged tanker if it tried to ship oil from a rebel-controlled port, in a major escalation of a standoff over the country’s petroleum wealth. Because obviously the Mediterranean is far too boring with Greece and Italy now fixed.

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/Oa4D8R Tyler Durden

With a March 16th date set for Crimea's referendum (to confirm that the region, which has an ethnic Russian majority, is a part of Russia) and a few short days after Ukraine's Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is due to meet President Obama in the White House, Reuters reports that The United States will not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia if residents of the region vote to leave Ukraine. Obama has said a referendum on Crimea would violate international law and the Ukrainian constitution… but this raise 3 awkward (and apparently hypocritical) questions on the right to self-determination.

 

Reuters reports that the US will not recognize Crimea's annexation (or implicitly their right to self-determination),

Tony Blinken, U.S. President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, said on CNN's "State of the Union" program that Russia would come under increased international pressure as a result of the referendum in Crimea.

 

"First, if there is an annexation of Crimea, a referendum that moves Crimea from Ukraine to Russia, we won't recognize it, nor will most of the world," Blinken said.

 

"Second, the pressure that we've already exerted in coordination with our partners and allies will go up. The president made it very clear in announcing our sanctions, as did the Europeans the other day, that this is the first step and we've put in place a very flexible and very tough mechanism to increase the pressure, to increase the sanctions."

 

Obama has said a referendum on Crimea would violate international law and the Ukrainian constitution.

Which as Yanis Varoufakis writes, raises three awkward questions for Western liberals…

Let us accept (as I do) the principle that national minorities have the right to self-determination within lopsided multi-ethnic states; e.g. Croats and Kosovars seceding from Yugoslavia, Scots from the UK, Georgians from the Soviet Union etc.

Awkward question no. 1: On what principle can we deny, once Croatia, Kosovo, Scotland and Georgia have come into being, the right of Krajina Serbs, of Mitrovica Serbs, of Shetland Islanders and of Abkhazians to carve out, if they so wish, their own nation-states within the newly independent nation-states in the areas where they constitute a clear majority?

Awkward question no. 2: On what principle does a western liberal deny the right of Chechens to independence from Russia, but is prepared to defend to the hilt the Georgians’ or the Ukrainians’ right to self-determination?

Awkward question no. 3: On what principle is it justifiable that the West acquiesced to the raising to the ground of Grozny (Chechnya’s capital), not to mention the tens of thousands of civilian deaths, but responded fiercely, threatened with global sanctions, and raised the spectre of a major Cold War-like confrontation over the (so far) bloodless deployment of undercover Russian troops in Crimea?

The above three questions are being asked not because I want to challenge the notion that Mr Putin is a dangerous despot. I have no doubt that he is. Indeed, I wear as a badge of honour the fact that I was in a minority of one in the Faculty Board meeting of the University of Athens in 2003, where I voted against the award of an honourary doctoral degree to Mr Putin by the University of Athens (denying the University the opportunity to state that the award had been unanimous, and thus incurring the wrath of most colleagues who had been ‘requested’ politely by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs to honour Mr Putin during his visit to Athens).

My three awkward questions have two aims: To remind readers of the West’s unprincipled attitude toward ‘other’ people’s struggles and tragedies. And to explain, in part, why such unprincipled behavior by the proponents of democratic principles ends up denigrating not only these very principles but greatly reinforcing the power and influence of the Putins of this world as well.

Europe and the Ukraine

Ukrainians fought pitched battles against the security forces in Kiev’s main square to protest against the former President Yanukovic’s decision to back out of a deal that would seal the country’s partnership with the European Union. Why? Are they blind to the incongruities of the European Union?

No, they are not. However, Ukrainians are facing a different type of problem compared to those we Europeans do. Whatever bone we have to pick with Brussels, with the ECB etc. (and we have many!), the people of Kiev had other priorities. E.g. how to rid themselves of security forces that felt at liberty to torture and to kill; how to travel freely; how to live in a country where courts were not completely run by the same mafia that run the state apparatus. To them, the fact that democracy is on the wane in the Eurozone and Europe’s principles are becoming increasingly hollow, matters little: The EU, however fast it may be descending into democratic illegitimacy, still looks like Heaven through many Ukrainian eyes.

Having said that, the greatest tragedy for Ukrainians is that their highest hopes are resting on weak shoulders: the European Union’s!

‘Europe’s Foreign Policy’ are three words that only need to be stated to cause hilarity. For there is no such thing, in truth. Even the Franco-German axis has been shuttered by Libya, let alone the ambitious idea of a common foreign policy for a United Europe that can act as a bulwark helpful to the Ukraine.

While Libya was of minimal importance to Europe’s security, even if of crucial importance to the Libyans, Ukraine is crucial and Europe ought to tread very carefully. What worries me the most is that the seriousness of the Ukrainian crisis is in inverse proportion to Europe’s competence in the field of foreign policy. Brussels may be keen to expand its ‘authority’ Eastward but it is treading into dangerous territory, ill equipped to deal with the repercussions.

The United States, the IMF, Germany and the Ukraine

The Ukraine is, and was always going to be, the battleground between Russia’s industrial neo-feudalism, the US State Department’s ambitions, and Germany’s neo-Lebensraum policies. Various ‘Eurasianists’ see the crisis in Kiev as a great opportunity to promote a program of full confrontation with Russia, one that is reminiscent of Z. Brzezinski’s 1970s anti-Soviet strategy. Importantly, they also see the Ukraine as an excellent excuse to torpedo America’s role in normalising relations with Iran and minimising the human cost in Syria. At the same time, the IMF cannot wait to enter Russia’s underbelly with a view to imposing another ‘stabilization-and-structural-adjustment program’ that will bring that whole part of the former Soviet Union under its purview. As for Germany, it has its own agenda which pulls its in two different directions at once: securing as much of the former Soviet Union as part of its neo-Lebensraum strategy of expanding its market/industrial space Eastwards; while, at the same time, preserving its privileged access to gas supplies from Gazprom.

As for the White House itself, there is little doubt that both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry understand the limits of Western power and the danger that too much of a hawkish reaction to the events in the Ukraine will undermine their efforts vis-à-vis Syria and Iran, at a time when Iraq is being increasingly destabilised.

 

The bottom line, unfortunately, it would appear therefore that this referendum may well be the tipping point in this crisis. With a second city in Crimea revolting today, it would appear a foregone conclusion that the referendum will come down in favor of annexation which will pit Russia (forced to support its countrymen who it sees as having voted legally for self-determination) against US (cornered by comments on the legitimacy of the referendum and likely promises to Yatsnyuk) – we suspect March 16th will be the risk-off moment.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/NO50pD Tyler Durden

Remember: in every socialist utopia, at the end of the day, everyone is equal… in their poverty.

Venezuelans queue long hours at markets to buy “whatever they have” http://t.co/q5A1U4NzLg by @LThometAFP http://ift.tt/Pgm1dk

— Agence France-Presse (@AFP) March 8, 2014

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1k74gao Tyler Durden

While the US may be rejoicing its daily stock market all time highs day after day, it may come as a surprise to many that global equity capitalization has hardly performed as impressively compared to its previous records set in mid-2007. In fact, between the last bubble peak, and mid-2013, there has been a $3.86 trillion decline in the value of equities to $53.8 trillion over this six year time period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Alas, in a world in which there is no longer even hope for growth without massive debt expansion, there is a cost to keeping global equities stable (and US stocks at record highs): that cost is $30 trillion, or nearly double the GDP of the United States, which is by how much global debt has risen over the same period. Specifically, total global debt has exploded by 40% in just 6 short years from  2007 to 2013, from “only” $70 trillion to over $100 trillion as of mid-2013, according to the BIS’ just-released quarterly review.

It should come as no surprise to anyone by now, but the only reason why global stocks haven’t plummeted since the Lehman collapse is simple: governments have become the final backstop for onboarding risk, with a Central Bank stamp of approval – in other words, the very framework of the fiat system is at stake should global equity levels collapse. The BIS admits as much: “Given the significant expansion in government spending in recent years, governments (including central, state and local governments) have been the largest debt issuers,” according to Branimir Gruic, an analyst, and Andreas Schrimpf, an economist at the BIS.

It should also come as no surprise that courtesy of ZIRP and monetization of debt by every central bank, debt has itself become money regardless of duration or maturity (although recent taper tantrums have shown what will happen once rates start rising across the curve again), explaining the mindblowing tsunami of new debt issuance, which will certainly never be repaid, and whose rolling will become impossible once interest rates rise. But of course, under central planning that is not allowed. As Bloomberg reminds us, marketable U.S. government debt outstanding has surged to a record $12 trillion, up from $4.5 trillion at the end of 2007,  according to U.S. Treasury data compiled by Bloomberg. Corporate bond sales globally jumped during the period, with issuance totaling more than $21 trillion, Bloomberg data show.

And as we won’t tire of pointing out, China’s credit expansion over this period is easily the most important, and overlooked one. Which is why with China out of the epic debt issuance picture, and with the Fed tapering, all bets are slowly coming off.

 

Bloomberg also comments, humorously, as follows: “concerned that high debt loads would cause international investors to avoid their markets, many nations resorted to austerity measures of reduced spending and increased taxes, reining in their economies in the process as they tried to restore the fiscal order they abandoned to fight the worldwide recession.” Of course, once gross government corruption and incompetence made all attempts at austerity futile, and with even the austere nations’ debt levels continuing to breach record highs confirming there was never any actual austerity to begin with, the push to pretend to reign debt in has finally faded, and the entire world is once again engaged – at breakneck speed – in doing what caused the great financial crisis in the first place: the issuance of record amounts of unsustainable debt.

All of the above is known. What may not be known is just who is issuing, and respectively, purchasing, this global debt-funded spending spree, especially in a world in which one’s debt is another’s asset. Here is the BIS’s answer to that question:

Cross-border investments in global debt markets since the crisis

Branimir Grui? and Andreas Schrimpf

Global debt markets have grown to an estimated $100 trillion (in amounts outstanding) in mid-2013 (Graph C, left-hand panel), up from $70 trillion in mid-2007. Growth has been uneven across the main market segments. Active issuance by governments and non-financial corporations has lifted the share of domestically issued bonds, whereas more restrained activity by financial institutions has held back international issuance (Graph C, left-hand panel).

Not surprisingly, given the significant expansion in government spending in recent years, governments (including central, state and local governments) have been the largest debt issuers (Graph C, left-hand panel). They mostly issue debt in domestic markets, where amounts outstanding reached $43 trillion in June 2013, about 80% higher than in mid-2007 (as indicated by the yellow area in Graph C, left-hand panel). Debt issuance by non-financial corporates has grown at a similar rate (albeit from a lower base). As with governments, non-financial corporations primarily issue domestically. As a result, amounts outstanding of non-financial corporate debt in domestic markets surpassed $10 trillion in mid-2013 (blue area in Graph C, left-hand panel). The substitution of traditional bank loans with bond financing may have played a role, as did investors’ appetite for assets offering a pickup to the ultra-low yields in major sovereign bond markets.

Financial sector deleveraging in the aftermath of the financial crisis has been a primary reason for the sluggish growth of international compared to domestic debt markets. Financials (mostly banks and non-bank financial corporations) have traditionally been the most significant issuers in international debt markets (grey area in Graph C, left-hand panel). That said, the amount of debt placed by financials in the international market has grown by merely 19% since mid-2007, and the outstanding amounts in domestic markets have even edged down by 5% since end-2007.

Who are the investors that have absorbed the vast amount of newly issued debt? Has the investor base been mostly domestic or have cross-border investments grown at a similar pace to global debt markets? To provide a perspective, we combine data from the BIS securities statistics with those of the IMF Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey (CPIS). The results of the CPIS suggest that non-resident investors held around $27 trillion of global debt securities, either as reserve assets or in the form of portfolio investments (Graph C, centre panel). Investments in debt securities by non-residents thus accounted for roughly one quarter of the stock of global debt securities, with domestic investors accounting for the remaining 75%.

The global financial crisis has left a dent in cross-border portfolio investments in global debt securities. The share of debt securities held by cross-border investors either as reserve assets or via portfolio investments (as a percentage of total global debt securities markets) fell from around 29% in early 2007 to 26% in late 2012. This reversed the trend in the pre-crisis period, when it had risen by 8 percentage points from 2001 to a peak in 2007. It suggests that the process of international financial integration may have gone partly into reverse since the onset of the crisis, which is consistent with other recent findings in the literature.

This could be temporary, though. The latest IMF-CPIS data indicate that cross-border investments in debt securities recovered slightly in the second half of  2012, the most recent period for which data are available.

The contraction in the share of cross-border holdings differed across countries and regions (Graph C, right-hand panel). Cross-border holdings of debt issued by euro area residents stood at 47% of total outstanding amounts in late 2012, 10 percentage points lower than at the peak in 2006. A similar trend can be observed for the United Kingdom. This suggests that the majority of new debt issued by euro area and UK residents has been absorbed by domestic investors. Newly issued US debt securities, by contrast, were increasingly held by cross-border investors (Graph C, right-hand panel). The same is true for debt securities issued by borrowers from emerging market economies. The share of emerging market debt securities held by cross-border investors picked up to 12% in 2012, roughly twice as high as in 2008.

* * *

Source: BIS

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nwq40t Tyler Durden