Trading The Technicals: Buy The “December Triple Witching” Dip

The S&P 500 is set to resume higher, according to BofAML’s Macneil Curry pointing to the week of December Triple Witching as historically one strongest of the year for the S&P500. With fundamentals a thing-of-the-past, paying attention to the technicals in a world of one driver of stocks (Fed balance sheet), for short-term trading signals may have some value. Of course, with an ‘event’ as potentially huge as the FOMC meeting this week, adding risk on an already good year (when the world already believes a taper is “priced in”) may be more greatest fool than momo monkey.

 

Via BofAML,

S&P500 set to resume higher

The week ahead should take its cue from US equities. This Friday is December Triple Witching (the term used for the quarterly expiry of US equity index futures, options on equity index futures and equity options). Consistently the week of December Triple Witching is one strongest of the year for the S&P500. In the 31 years since the creation of equity index futures, the S&P500 has risen 74% of the time during this week. More recently, it has risen in ten of the past 12 years. With equity volatility fast approaching a buy signal, the conditions are growing ripe for an end to the month long range trade and resumption of the larger bull trend (we target 1840/1850 into year-end). This should be bearish for US Treasuries with 10s targeting 2.95%/3.00% and 5s targeting 1.67%/1.69% (we are short TYH4). From an FX perspective, this environment should be bullish for the US $. We continue to look for a €/$ top and recommend sticking with $/¥ longs for 104.60/105.00. 

Chart of the week: The week of December Triple Witching 

 

The S&P500 historically performs very well during the week of December Triple Witching. Since 1982, it has averaged a rise of .63% and risen 74% percent of the time. To put this in perspective, the average weekly return since 1982 is .19% and the index has risen 57% percent of the time. This is a bullish setup 

S&P500 volatility says the correction is drawing to an end

In addition to positive seasonals; equity volatility says that the range trade/correction of the past month is drawing to a conclusion. Specifically, the VXV/VIX ratio (VXV is the BBG ticker for 3m SP500 Volatility) is about to reach levels that have repeatedly coincided with a resumption of the larger bull trend. While allowing for one last dip into 1775/1745 support, the bull trend is about to resume.

Stay bearish US Treasuries. TYH4 is resuming its bear trend

 

A resumption of the larger bull trend in US equities should put added weight on the US Treasury market. We remain bearish and short TYH4. We look for 10s to test 2.95%/3.00% in the weeks ahead, while 5s remain on track for 1.67%/1.69%. TYH4 targets 122-06+ following the completion of a 2m Head and Shoulders Top.

The US $ should do well. Stay bullish $/¥

 

The combination of bullish US equities and bearish US Treasuries should be supportive for the US $, particularly against the Japanese ¥. We continue to target 104.60/105.00 (and potentially beyond) into year-end. Pullbacks should hold 101.62, but $/¥ bears don’t gain control UNTIL A BREAK OF 100.62.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/FyvgV7f5R4M/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Week Ahead and Beyond

The recent string of data has convinced many observers that the US economic expansion has accelerated to the point where the Fed could begin to slow its assets purchases as at this week’s meeting.  

 

Although we had initially favored a Dec tapering over a Sept move, we have become less convinced.  The key to argument is two-fold:   core PCE inflation is low and is likely to fall sharply over the next few months, and the credibility of  forward guidance, which is to replace the asset purchases, is enhanced by letting the post-Bernanke Fed announce and implement.

 

The core PCE deflator, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure rose 1.1% in October from a year ago.  Consider the base effect when Nov 2012 monthly increase of 0.8% and Dec 2012 monthly increase of 0.5% drops out of the comparison.     It is more prudent to taper at least when inflation is not falling especially from so such low levels. 

 

There will be significant changes in the composition of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which extend beyond the chairmanship itself.  The credibility of forward guidance dictates that the new Fed, under Yellen’s leadership, articulates a new forward guidance that will coincide with the tapering decision. 

 

There are other, less compelling reasons for the Fed not to taper, like avoiding unsettling money markets over the sensitive year-end period, or that more data is needed to confirm the economy has turned a corner.  The point is that many observers seem to have simply extrapolated from some arguably strengthening of economic activity to conclude Fed tapering, without adequately taking into account the low and falling inflation and the need to maximize the credibility of forward guidance to ensure the market continues to recognize the difference between tapering and tightening. 

 

The euro area reports the flash Dec PMI on Monday.   While the PMIs generally do a good job tracking real sector activity, we note that they appear to be running ahead now.  The weakness in the Nov industrial production figures, for example, was not anticipated by the survey data.  More broadly, the contraction in the euro area as a whole has ended, but in its place is stagnation.  In the euro area, a recovery has yet to begin.  In the US, the issue is the strength of the expansion. 

 

The divergence between the economic performance of France and Germany has been more evident in the PMI data than the performance of the asset markets.  In part, due to robust Asian investment flows, France appears to have retained investor confidence.  A continued poor performance of the French economy may become a greater market force next year. 

 

At the end of the week, the last European Council, of the heads of state, will hold their last summit of the year.  The most important issue will be the formal decision on the single resolution mechanism.  The ECB will be the supervisor, working with the European Banking Authority.  The debate over the mechanism itself has been fierce.  The compromise seems to be that national authorities retain much control and responsibility for the process.   It is not so much a banking union, especially in the first several years, as an agreed upon extension of the status quo. 

 

Nevertheless, the pieces will be in place that will allow the Asset Quality Review and the stress test to proceed as planned for 2014.  In the next phase of the construction of a banking union, the focus will be on the creation of a Single Resolution Fund.   The way the resolution mechanism was worked out will shape the fund, especially before it can be adequately funded by the banks.  Essentially, the bank and its investors are the first line of defense.   The German desire for a banking union is limited by its wiliness to 1) let Brussels make decisions about the landesbanks, and 2) willingness to fund a resolution mechanism. 

 

Outside of the US and euro area, there are several more events that investors will be monitoring.  The UK has three events that will be noteworthy:  inflation report, the latest reading on the labor markets and minutes from the recent BOE meeting. 

 

Inflation expectations remain anchored, but price pressures remain sticky in the UK.  Of particular interest will be the effect of the previously announced increase in utility prices.  The BOE’s forward guidance, like the Fed’s, has provided an unemployment threshold (7.0% vs 6.5% for the Fed).  The unemployment rate is likely to tick down to 7.5%.  The UK’s participation rate has held up better than in the US (and Australia) by contrast, but the price has been lower productivity.

 

As BOE Governor Carney pointed out in NY last week, the atrophy of skills is taking place in the UK on the job (labor shifted form high productivity to lower productivity positions) as opposed to among the long-term unemployed, as seems to be the case elsewhere. Finally, the BOE’s minutes will be studied for clues to how forward guidance may evolve next year, especially in terms of labor market dynamics. 

 

Sweden’s Riksbank meets.  It is a close call.  Important real sector data has deteriorated and disinflationary conditions threatened to morph into deflation.  Interest rates policy is recognized (by at least some board members) as an inefficient tool to address the elevated household debt levels.  If a cut is not delivered, the krona may be subject to a short-covering bounce, but expectations for a cut will simply shift to early next year. 

 

The Bank of Canada meets.  It had previously distanced itself from the forward guidance that was inherited from Carney that indicated the “removal of accommodation” (i.e. a rate hike) would be delivered soon (though it repeatedly pushed out in time what that would be necessary).    

 

Canada is experiencing disinflation and the impact on the real economy is likely to be a 2014 story.  Headline inflation is running at 1.0% year-over-year, while the core rate at 1.2% is essentially the same as the US rate.   However, a key difference is that Canada’s housing prices and consumer debt are at record levels.  

 

Although some Canadian banks have tried to play down the extent of the over-valuation in the housing market, it is clearly on the central bank’s radar screen. Last week Governor Poloz recognized the housing market as the single biggest domestic economic threat.   Mortgage borrowing increased another 1.8% in Q3, bringing household debt to 163.7% of disposable income. 

 

Comments by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia that provided a specific bilateral exchange rate target of $0.8500 for the Australian dollar violate the spirit of G20 agreements.  He is unlikely to repeat this faux pas.  It is well understood and appreciated that the Australian dollar is over-valued by almost any metric one wants to use.  However, a nominal bilateral exchange rate is a poor proxy for the competitiveness of the currency.

 

Moreover, macro-economic variables do not appear very sensitive to a few percentage point move that Steven’s target entails.   The new government will provide new economic forecasts and a fiscal update.  Australia debt is rising and this issue will likely become more significant next year. 

 

We note that of all forces that impact foreign exchange prices, the wishes of policy makers, unless a signal of action, tend not to be very salient.  The largely speculative market seized on Steven’s comments to push against the bottom pickers who were arguably poised to take a stand.&nbsp
;

 

The Bank of Japan holds its final meeting for 2013.   It is most unlikely to take any fresh initiatives.  There seems to be a general expectation that the BOJ will take additional action, but there is much debate over when.  We think it does not come before officials have greater visibility on the impact of the retail sales tax increase on April 1. 

 

The Tankan report first thing Monday in Tokyo is expected to confirm a gradual increase in business sentiment in Japan.  However, we note that businesses are not the most ardent supporters of Abenomics in deed, regardless of their support for the LDP.  This is especially true in two important areas in which Abenomics has been disappointing:  capital expenditures and sharing the windfall profits generated by a weaker yen in the form of base wage increases.

Turning to emerging markets, five central banks meet.  India is expected to hikes for the third consecutive time.  A 25 bp increase will take the key overnight rate to 8%.  Hungary is expected to deliver another 20 bp rate cut that would put its key rate at 3%.  The central banks of the Czech Republic, Colombia and Turkey meet, but no action is expected. 

 

Lastly, China seems to be on the move.  Tensions over the disputed islands, airspace, and sea lanes have intensified and the risk of an international incident has increased markedly.  China does not appear to be afraid of a confrontation, but, to the contrary, appears to be looking for one. 

 

 With the successfully landing and deployment of the Jade Rabbit rover, China became the third country and the first in almost four decades to have an unmanned moon landing.  Neither of these developments appears to be having a particular impact on financial assets.  However, many will be scrutinizing the bilateral trade flows, especially with Japan and South Korea, to see if China is linking the political dispute with trade, which it has done previously. 

 

 

While the moon landing is a great feat from an engineering point of view, one can’t help but wonder about the price for what appears to be an expensive way to bolster status and prestige.  Recall that despite China being the second largest economy in the world; it is still a poor country, where GDP per capita is about $6500 a year.    The Chinese economy is a little more than half the size of the US, its GDP per capita is roughly a fifth the size.  

 

The soft moon landing may say more about China’s desire to be seen as a great power, the egos of the key decision makers (individually or collectively) and the surplus accumulated by the state, than it does about China’s space prowess.  The terrestrial implications are more significant.  


    



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

JPMorgan’s “Bitcoin-Alternative” Patent Rejected (175 Times)

Earlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan's attempt to create their own "web cash" alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank's talk of doing the same). However, as M-Cam details, following the failure of the first 154 'claims', JPMorgan issued a further 20 claims – which were summarily rejected (making JPMorgan 0-175 for approved claims). As they note, The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application ("Bitcoin Alternative") highlights the need to fix a broken system – patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies (no matter how powerful the claimant).

 

Via M-Cam,

“BITCOIN is booming.”…?

On August 5, 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPMorgan) filed an application for an electronic mobile payment system which has eerie similarities to the popular online currency Bitcoin. Unfortunately for JPMorgan, all of the claims, totaling 175 claims, as of October 18, 2013, for published US patent application 20130317984 (the ‘984 application) have been either cancelled or rejected.

Analysis

Below is a view of JPMorgan’s ‘984 application.

After the initial 154 claims were abruptly cancelled, JPMorgan’s attorney submitted 20 additional claims which the examiner, Jagdish Patel, issued non?final rejections for all 20 of the new claims in October 2013. This makes JPMorgan 0?175 in terms of approved claims. The last 20 claims were rejected for non?patentability and indefiniteness under Title 35 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 101 and 112.

However, Mr. Patel might well have rejected the claims because of the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), meaning that if the invention has been on sale for over a year then the invention is no longer patentable. Under the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule, the application could be invalid because it closely mirrors Bitcoin with features such as making free and anonymous electronic payments and Bitcoin has been in circulation since 2009.

Conclusion

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application highlights the need to fix a broken system.

Patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies.

 

Part of the problem of a system in which one third of patents are seriously or fatally impaired is that companies are allowed to patent items that their competitors have already invented.

Obviously, large financial institutions want in on the online alternative currency action. But they would be well advised to pursue novel and non?obvious approaches that do not duplicate existing commercial options with respect to a virtual medium of exchange.

Full Patent Glossary here (PDF)


    



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

JPMorgan's "Bitcoin-Alternative" Patent Rejected (175 Times)

Earlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan's attempt to create their own "web cash" alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank's talk of doing the same). However, as M-Cam details, following the failure of the first 154 'claims', JPMorgan issued a further 20 claims – which were summarily rejected (making JPMorgan 0-175 for approved claims). As they note, The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application ("Bitcoin Alternative") highlights the need to fix a broken system – patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies (no matter how powerful the claimant).

 

Via M-Cam,

“BITCOIN is booming.”…?

On August 5, 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPMorgan) filed an application for an electronic mobile payment system which has eerie similarities to the popular online currency Bitcoin. Unfortunately for JPMorgan, all of the claims, totaling 175 claims, as of October 18, 2013, for published US patent application 20130317984 (the ‘984 application) have been either cancelled or rejected.

Analysis

Below is a view of JPMorgan’s ‘984 application.

After the initial 154 claims were abruptly cancelled, JPMorgan’s attorney submitted 20 additional claims which the examiner, Jagdish Patel, issued non?final rejections for all 20 of the new claims in October 2013. This makes JPMorgan 0?175 in terms of approved claims. The last 20 claims were rejected for non?patentability and indefiniteness under Title 35 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 101 and 112.

However, Mr. Patel might well have rejected the claims because of the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), meaning that if the invention has been on sale for over a year then the invention is no longer patentable. Under the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule, the application could be invalid because it closely mirrors Bitcoin with features such as making free and anonymous electronic payments and Bitcoin has been in circulation since 2009.

Conclusion

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application highlights the need to fix a broken system.

Patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies.

 

Part of the problem of a system in which one third of patents are seriously or fatally impaired is that companies are allowed to patent items that their competitors have already invented.

Obviously, large financial institutions want in on the online alternative currency action. But they would be well advised to pursue novel and non?obvious approaches that do not duplicate existing commercial options with respect to a virtual medium of exchange.

Full Patent Glossary here (PDF)


    



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

Guest Post: Who Needs The Debt Ceiling?

Submitted by Russell Lamberti of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

US lawmakers reached a budget deal this week that will avert the sequester cuts and shutdowns. These fiscal “roadblocks” supposedly damaged investor confidence in 2013, although clearly no one told equity investors who’ve chased the S&P 500 up 26 percent this year. But even so the budget deal is seen by inflationists as only half the battle won, because it doesn’t deal with the pesky debt ceiling. Unsurprisingly, the old calls for a scrapping of the debt ceiling are being heard afresh.

Last week, The Week ran an opinion piece by John Aziz which argues that America (and all other nations for that matter) should keep borrowing until investors no longer want to lend to it. To this end, it is argued, the US should scrap its debt ceiling because the only debt ceiling it needs is the one imposed by the market. When the market doesn’t want to lend to you anymore, bond yields will rise to such an extent that you can no longer afford to borrow any more money. You will reach your natural, market-determined debt ceiling. According to this line of reasoning, American bond yields are incredibly low, meaning there is no shortage of people willing to lend to Uncle Sam. So Washington should take advantage of these fantastically easy loans and leverage up.

Here’s part of the key paragraph from Aziz:

Right now interest rates are very low by historical standards, even after adjusting for inflation. This means that the government is not producing sufficient debt to satisfy the market demand. The main reason for that is the debt ceiling.

What this fails to appreciate is that interest rates are a heavily controlled price in all of today’s major economies. This is particularly true in the case of America, where the Federal Reserve controls short-term interest rates using open market operations (i.e., loaning newly printed money to banks) and manipulates long-term interest rates using quantitative easing. By injecting vast amounts of liquidity into the economy, the Fed makes it appear as though there is more savings than there really is. But US bond yields are currently no more a reflection of the market’s demand for US debt than a price ceiling on gasoline is a reflection of its booming supply. Contra the view expressed in The Week, low rates brought about by contrived zero-bound policy rates and trillions of dollars in QE can mislead the federal government into borrowing more while at the same time pushing savers and investors out of US bond markets and into riskier assets like corporate bonds, equities, exotic derivatives, emerging markets, and so on.

Greece once thought that the market was giving it the green light to “produce” more debt. Low borrowing rates for Greece were not a sign of fiscal health, however, but really just layer upon layer of false and contrived signals arising from easy ECB money, allowing Greece to hide behind Germany’s credit status. As it turned out, a legislative debt ceiling in Greece (one that was actually adhered to) would have been a far better idea than pretending this manipulated market was a fair reflection of reality. Investors were happy to absorb Greece’s debt until suddenly they weren’t.

This is the nature of sovereign debt accumulation driven by easy money and credit bubbles. It’s all going swimmingly until it’s not. And there is little reason to think this time the US is different. Except that America might be worse. The very fact of the Fed buying Treasuries with newly printed money proves Washington is producing too much debt. China even stated recently that it saw no more utility accumulating any more dollar debt assets. If the whole point of QE is to monetize impaired assets, then the Fed likely sees Treasury bonds as facing considerable impairment risk. Theory and history are clear about the reasons for and consequences of large-scale and persistent debt monetization.

Finally, it is wrong to assert that the debt ceiling is the main reason for America’s fiscal deficit reduction. The ceiling has never provided a meaningful barrier to America’s borrowing ambitions, hence the dozens of upward adjustments to the ceiling whenever it threatens to crimp the whims of Washington’s profligate classes. America’s rate of new borrowing is falling because all the money it has printed washed into the economic system and found its way back into tax revenues. Corporate profits are soaring to all-time highs on dirt cheap trade financing. Corporate high-grade debt issuance has set a new record in 2013. Companies are rolling their short-term debts, now super-cheap thanks to Bernanke’s money machine, and issuing long, into a bubbly IPO and corporate bond market. The last time corporate profits surged like they’re doing now was during the credit and housing bubble that preceded the unraveling and inevitable bust in 2008/09.

These are money and credit cycle effects. The debt ceiling has had precious little to do with it. Moreover, US debt is neither crimped nor the US Treasury Department austere. Instead, the national debt is soaring, $60,000 higher for every US family since Obama took office and rising. Add to this the fact that the US Treasury’s bond issuance schedule is actually set to rise in 2014 due to huge amounts of maturing debt needing to be rolled over next year, and the fiscal significance of the debt ceiling fades even further.

The singular brilliance of the debt ceiling however, is that it keeps reminding everyone that there is a growing national debt that never seems to shrink. That is a tremendous service to American citizens who live in the dark regarding the borrowing machinations of their political overlords. Yes, politicians keep raising the debt ceiling, but nowadays they have to bend themselves into ever twisty pretzels trying to explain why to their justifiably skeptical and cynical constituents. Most people don’t understand bond yields, quantitative easing, and Keynesian pump-a-thons too well, but they sure understand a debt ceiling.

 

Conclusion

Those who adhere to the don’t-stop-til-you-get-enough theory of sovereign borrowing, and by extension argue for a scrapping of the debt ceiling, couldn’t be more misguided. In free markets with no Fed money market distortion, interest rates can be a useful guide of the amount of real savings being made available to borrowers. When borrowers want to borrow more, real interest rates will rise, and at some point this crimps the marginal demand for borrowing, acting as a natural “debt ceiling.” But when markets are heavily distorted by central bank money printing and contrived zero-bound rates, interest rates utterly cease to serve this purpose for prolonged periods of time. What takes over is the false signals of the unsustainable business cycle which fools people into thinking there is more savings than there really is. Greece provides a recent real-world case study of this very phenomenon in action. In these cases we are likely to see low rates sustained during the increase in government borrowing, only for them to quickly reset higher and plunge a country into a debt trap which may force default or extreme money printing.

Debt monetization has a proven track record of ending badly. It is after all the implicit admission that no one but your monopoly money printer is willing to lend to you at the margin. The realization that this is unsustainable can take a while to sink in, but when it does, all it takes is an inevitable fat-tail event or crescendo of panic to topple the house of cards. If the market realizes it’s been duped into having too much before the government decides it’s had enough, a debt crisis won’t be far away.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/rV6TPs2KS2Q/story01.htm Tyler Durden

"Money For Nothing" And The Survival Of The Fattest

It is perhaps a testament to the ability of the oligarchy (that 1% which owns some 50% of all US assets) to distract and distort newsflow from what really matters, that a century after the creation of the Federal Reserve, the vast majority of Americans are still unfamiliar with the most important institution in the history of the US – an institution that unlike the government is not accountable to the people (if only as prescribed on a piece of rapidly amortizing paper), but merely to a few banker stakeholders as Bernanke’s actions over the past five years have demonstrated beyond any doubt. It is for their benefit that Jim Bruce’s groundbreaking movie “Money for Nothing” is a must see, although we would urge everyone else, including those frequent Zero Hedge readers well-versed in the inner workings of the Fed, to take the two hours and recall just who the real enemy of the people truly is.

A quick note on producer, director and writer Jim Bruce. While Jim has been a student of financial markets for over a decade, and began writing a newsletter in 2006 warning about the oncoming financial crisis, what is perhaps most notable is that it was his short trades in 2007 and 2008 that helped finance a significant portion of Money For Nothing’s budget.

However, most impressive is Bruce’s ability to bring together such a broad and insightful cast which includes both current and former Fed members, as well as some of the most outspoken Fed critics, among which:

  • Paul Volcker
  • Janet Yellen
  • Alice Rivlin
  • Alan Blinder
  • Richard Fisher
  • Thomas Hoenig
  • Jeffrey Lacker
  • Jim Grant
  • Allan Meltzer
  • Raghuram Rajan
  • Charles Plosser
  • Tony Boeckh
  • Jeremy Grantham
  • Todd Harrison

… and many others.

From the film’s official website:

MONEY FOR NOTHING is a feature-length documentary about the Federal Reserve – made by a Team of AFI, Sundance, and Academy Award winners – that seeks to unveil America’s central bank and its impact on our economy and our society.

 

Current and former top economists, financial historians, and investors and traders provide unprecedented access and take viewers behind the curtain to debate the future of the world’s most powerful financial institution.

 

Digging beneath the surface of the 2008 crisis, Money For Nothing is the first film to ask why so many facets of our financial system seemed to self-destruct at the same time. For many economists and senior Fed officials, the answer is clear: the same Fed that put out 2008’s raging financial fire actually helped light the match years before.

 

As the global financial system continues to falter, the Federal Reserve finds itself at a crossroads. The choices it makes will greatly influence the kind of world our children and grandchildren inherit. How can the Federal Reserve steer our nation toward a more sustainable path? How can the American people – who the Fed was created to serve – influence an institution whose inner workings they may not understand?

 

The key tenet underlying Money For Nothing is our belief that a more fully and accurately informed public will promote greater accountability and more effective policies from our central bank – no matter the conclusions any individual draws from the film.

Sadly this is where we differ, for it is Zero Hedge’s opinion that not only is it now far too late to promote any type of change at the top, but the best policy is to urge the Fed on in its ludicrous policies, in order to lead to the catastrophic culmination of 100 years of disastrous wealth-transfer policies, which unfortunately is the only possible way a cleansing systemic reset – one that would finally eradicate the scourge of central-planning – can be unleashed upon a broken and malfunctioning system in its final throes of status quo existence.

Then again, perhaps there is a chance.

Enjoy the trailer and see the movie either on Blu-Ray or in the theater:

 

Finally, as an added bonus, here are some thoughts from the creator and that supreme beneficiary of the Fed’s wealth transfer protocols, billionaire David Tepper, on how Ben Bernanke managed to, temporarily, circumvent Darwin’s laws and how it is not the fittest but the fattest that survive.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8xgDlwyEc1o/story01.htm Tyler Durden

“Money For Nothing” And The Survival Of The Fattest

It is perhaps a testament to the ability of the oligarchy (that 1% which owns some 50% of all US assets) to distract and distort newsflow from what really matters, that a century after the creation of the Federal Reserve, the vast majority of Americans are still unfamiliar with the most important institution in the history of the US – an institution that unlike the government is not accountable to the people (if only as prescribed on a piece of rapidly amortizing paper), but merely to a few banker stakeholders as Bernanke’s actions over the past five years have demonstrated beyond any doubt. It is for their benefit that Jim Bruce’s groundbreaking movie “Money for Nothing” is a must see, although we would urge everyone else, including those frequent Zero Hedge readers well-versed in the inner workings of the Fed, to take the two hours and recall just who the real enemy of the people truly is.

A quick note on producer, director and writer Jim Bruce. While Jim has been a student of financial markets for over a decade, and began writing a newsletter in 2006 warning about the oncoming financial crisis, what is perhaps most notable is that it was his short trades in 2007 and 2008 that helped finance a significant portion of Money For Nothing’s budget.

However, most impressive is Bruce’s ability to bring together such a broad and insightful cast which includes both current and former Fed members, as well as some of the most outspoken Fed critics, among which:

  • Paul Volcker
  • Janet Yellen
  • Alice Rivlin
  • Alan Blinder
  • Richard Fisher
  • Thomas Hoenig
  • Jeffrey Lacker
  • Jim Grant
  • Allan Meltzer
  • Raghuram Rajan
  • Charles Plosser
  • Tony Boeckh
  • Jeremy Grantham
  • Todd Harrison

… and many others.

From the film’s official website:

MONEY FOR NOTHING is a feature-length documentary about the Federal Reserve – made by a Team of AFI, Sundance, and Academy Award winners – that seeks to unveil America’s central bank and its impact on our economy and our society.

 

Current and former top economists, financial historians, and investors and traders provide unprecedented access and take viewers behind the curtain to debate the future of the world’s most powerful financial institution.

 

Digging beneath the surface of the 2008 crisis, Money For Nothing is the first film to ask why so many facets of our financial system seemed to self-destruct at the same time. For many economists and senior Fed officials, the answer is clear: the same Fed that put out 2008’s raging financial fire actually helped light the match years before.

 

As the global financial system continues to falter, the Federal Reserve finds itself at a crossroads. The choices it makes will greatly influence the kind of world our children and grandchildren inherit. How can the Federal Reserve steer our nation toward a more sustainable path? How can the American people – who the Fed was created to serve – influence an institution whose inner workings they may not understand?

 

The key tenet underlying Money For Nothing is our belief that a more fully and accurately informed public will promote greater accountability and more effective policies from our central bank – no matter the conclusions any individual draws from the film.

Sadly this is where we differ, for it is Zero Hedge’s opinion that not only is it now far too late to promote any type of change at the top, but the best policy is to urge the Fed on in its ludicrous policies, in order to lead to the catastrophic culmination of 100 years of disastrous wealth-transfer policies, which unfortunately is the only possible way a cleansing systemic reset – one that would finally eradicate the scourge of central-planning – can be unleashed upon a broken and malfunctioning system in its final throes of status quo existence.

Then again, perhaps there is a chance.

Enjoy the trailer and see the movie either on Blu-Ray or in the theater:

 

Finally, as an added bonus, here are some thoughts from the creator and that supreme beneficiary of the Fed’s wealth transfer protocols, billionaire David Tepper, on how Ben Bernanke managed to, temporarily, circumvent Darwin’s laws and how it is not the fittest but the fattest that survive.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8xgDlwyEc1o/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Another German Steps Down From The ECB As Joerg Asmussen Leaves For Deputy Labor Minister Post

One of the more vocal members of the ECB’s governing council and executive board, 47-year old German Joerg Asmussen, surprisingly announced this morning that he is stepping down for “purely private family reasons.” Concurrently, the German who has been a less tenuous version of his far more outspoken and hawkish compatriot Jens Weidmann, announced that he would accept a job as Deputy Labour Ministry job in the new German
government. What is surprising is that the German was not appointed finance minister in Merkel’s new cabinet, although with Schrodinger Schauble determined to keep his position it is explainable. What is more surprising is that Asmussen replaced none other than Juergen Stark, who once was said to be Trichet’s successor, and who dramatically quit the ECB over disagreements on the bank’s bond monetization program. One wonders: is Joerg’s untimely departure just the latest indication that the ECB is finally preparing to unroll a blanket quantitative easing program, just as BNP predicted it would, in its desperate, last-ditch attempt to defeat Europe’s slide into outright deflation and credit-creation collapse? Certainly, if Weidmann were to quietly leave next, then whatever you do, don’t stand below the Euro.

The full details from Reuters:

Asmussen, a member of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), was a highly regarded deputy Finance Minister in Berlin between 2008 and 2011 before being appointed to the ECB Executive Board by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2012.

He has since become a well-recognised face in European financial circles, giving speeches from Athens to Madrid. His surprise return to Berlin and inclusion in the government adds a dash of international flair to the right-left coalition that takes office on Tuesday.

Asmussen said he wanted to move back from the ECB headquarters in Frankfurt – and accept what is ostensibly a lesser job – in order to spend more time with his young family.

“This wasn’t an easy decision for me,” the 47-year-old said in a statement to Reuters after the appointment was announced by Labour Minister Andrea Nahles.

“I’ll be stepping down soon as a member of the ECB Executive Board. The reasons for this step are purely private, having to do with my family situation.”

He added: “It’s just not possible in the long run to reconcile having a position based in Frankfurt, with frequent business trips, and having my family and especially my two very young children in Berlin. There is definitely no other reason.”

Asmussen succeeded Juergen Stark, who stepped down from the ECB board in a row over its bond-buying programme.

Alongside Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, but with perhaps less tenacity, Asmussen at times criticised the ECB’s expansive policies. Both defended the ECB’s last interest rate cut in November as justified, however.

ECB President Mario Draghi said Asmussen will be missed.

“Joerg Asmussen has been a tremendous help in shaping the monetary policy in the past two years while successfully addressing many other challenges,” Draghi said in a statement. “I will personally miss him.”

Merkel said she was looking forward to working with Asmussen again, and that Germany would propose a successor at the ECB.

Among the top candidates are Bundesbank vice president Sabine Lautenschlaeger, BaFin head Elke Koenig and the head of the Halle institute for economic research, Claudia Buch – all women.

Asmussen’s name had been mentioned in recent months as a possible candidate for Finance Minister if the SPD took control of the ministry that it held in the last “grand coalition” from 2005 to 2009, when Asmussen was a deputy to Peer Steinbrueck.

But Asmussen had been consistently non-committal on the issue, saying he planned to fulfil his contract as an executive board member at the ECB that ran until end of 2019.

In the end, Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) retained control of the Finance Ministry with veteran Wolfgang Schaeuble, 71, staying in charge.

While Asmussen has enjoyed a sterling reputation with the SPD’s conservative wing and across the aisle in Merkel’s CDU, he was viewed with suspicion by the SPD left – which is informally led by Nahles.

Asmussen’s move to the ministry could help improve his standing on the left in the long term. Nahles told Reuters she was looking forward to working with Asmussen as her deputy.

“I’m delighted that Joerg Asmussen will be a state secretary in the Labour Ministry and bring his great executive experience and full engagement into this key ministry,” she said.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/XC9K07leOk0/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The IMF Disagrees With Zero Hedge

On Thursday, after we presented an article by Simon Black in which the author suggested that the IMF was implicitly proposing a 71% tax-rate on Americans, by “suggesting that the US government could maximize its tax revenue by increasing tax brackets to as high as 71%”, the IMF took offense to this characterization, and tweeted out the following:

Naturally, the IMF has a right to its opinion, be it retroactive revisionism, or proactive humorous predictions about the future, which incidentally we have charted in the past showing just how “accurate” the IMF’s forecasting track record has been in recent years…

… but since the topic of taxation, be it on wealth (something we warned about in September 2011, which as depositors in Cyprus banks learned about the hard way in March of this year), or income is far less humorous, we leave it up to readers to decide just what the IMF is “proposing”, using only the IMF’s own words.

Below we present the key passage from the IMF’s October 2013 Fiscal Monitor report titled “Taxing Times.”

Whether those with the highest incomes could or should pay more has become a contentious political issue in many countries. Several, given large consolidation needs, have bucked the decades-long trend by increasing top personal income tax rates quite substantially: since 2008, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom have all done so, on average by more than 8 percentage points.

 

Assessing whether there is untapped revenue potential at the top of the income distribution requires comparing today’s top marginal income tax rate with the marginal tax rate that would maximize the amount of tax paid by top income earners. The latter depends on two things: first, how responsive their taxable income is to that marginal rate—which in turn depends on both “real” decisions (on labor supply efforts and the like) and “paper” avoidance activities; and second, the distribution of income within that upper group. Ranges of revenue-maximizing top income tax rates can be calculated by combining existing estimates of the elasticity of taxable income with the data on income distribution used above. The average is about 60 percent. In several cases, current top marginal rates are toward the lower end of the range (Figure 17), implying that it might indeed be possible to raise more from those with the highest incomes.

 

How much more? The implied revenue gain if top rates on only the top 1 percent were returned to their levels in the 1980s averages about 0.20 percent of GDP (Figure 18), but the gain could in some cases, such as that of the United States, be more significant. This would not make much of a dent in aggregate inequality, for which, if that is the objective, more dramatic change would be needed.

Figure 17:

Some additional commentary from the WSJ from before our article, picking up where we left off in September 2011 with “The Coming Global Wealth Tax“, and curiously a piece the IMF had no problems with:

What the IMF calls “revenue-maximizing top income tax rates” may be a good indication of how much further those rates could rise: As the IMF calculates, the average revenue-maximizing rate for the main Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries is around 60%, way above existing levels.

 

For the U.S., it is 56% to 71%—far more than the current 45% paid in federal, state and local taxes by those in the top tax bracket. The IMF singles out the U.S. as the country where raising top rates toward 70% (where they were before the Reagan tax cuts) would yield the most revenue—around 1.25% of GDP. And with a chilling candor, the IMF admits that its revenue-maximizing approach takes no account of the well-being of top earners (or their businesses).

 

 

Of course these measures won’t return the world’s top economies to sustainable levels of debt. That could be achieved only through significant economic growth (the good way) or, as the IMF puts it, “by repudiating public debt or inflating it away” (the bad way). In October the IMF floated a bold idea that didn’t get the attention it deserved: lowering sovereign debt levels through a one-off tax on private wealth.

 

As applied to the euro zone, the IMF claims that a 10% levy on households’ positive net worth would bring public debt levels back to pre-financial crisis levels. Such a tax sounds crazy, but recall what happened in euro-zone country Cyprus this year: Holders of bank accounts larger than 100,000 euros had to incur losses of up to 100% on their savings above that threshold, in order to “bail-in” the bankrupt Mediterranean state. Japanese households, sitting on one of the world’s largest pools of savings, have particular reason to worry about their assets: At 240% of GDP, their country’s public debt ratio is more than twice that of Cyprus when it defaulted.

 

 

From New York to London, Paris and beyond, powerful economic players are deciding that with an ever-deteriorating global fiscal outlook, conventional levels and methods of taxation will no longer suffice. That makes weapons of mass wealth destruction—such as the IMF’s one-off capital levy, Cyprus’s bank deposit confiscation, or outright sovereign defaults—likelier by the day.

Finally, here is the IMF on the prospect of a “one-off” financial asset tax:

A One-Off Capital Levy?

 

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and ma
y be seen by some as fair). There have been illustrious supporters, including Pigou, Ricardo, Schumpeter, and—until he changed his mind—Keynes. The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away (these, in turn, are a particular form of wealth tax—on bondholders—that also falls on nonresidents).

 

There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I and in Germany and Japan after World War II. Reviewed in Eichengreen (1990), this experience suggests that more notable than any loss of credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction, largely because the delay in introduction gave space for extensive avoidance and capital flight—in turn spurring inflation.

 

The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth

… which promptly resulted in this “IMF Statement on Taxation” clarification.

So is Zero Hedge wrong as the IMF broadly trumpets? We’ll let readers decide. However, we just wanted to set the record straight – after all the last thing we want is for the IMF to admit it is wrong once again as it did in early 2013 with the whole “fiscal multipliers” fiasco (about which incidentally the IMF would be absolutely correct if instead of “austerity” the IMF were to use the proper term in its calculations: “corruption, gross government incompetence and epic capital misallocation“).


    



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

As Bitcoin Transaction Volume Triples Since October, Europe Prepares To Regulate, Tax The Digital Currency

Representing numbers that would put the adoption curve of Obamacare to shame, the Bitcoin equivalents of Paypal, BitPay, announced last week that it has now processed over $100 million in BTC transactions in 2013, has increased its merchant base to over 15,500 approved merchants in over 200 countries, but most importantly, has seen a surge in the number of merchants using its BTC payment pricing plan, by 50% since October while the volume of transactions has tripled. While the surge in the currency adoption has matched the explosive rise in the USD-value of the currency, the news should comfort any lingering doubts whether Bitcoin is a credible payment system.

From the BitPay press release:

BitPay Inc, the world leader in business solutions for virtual currencies, announces it has processed over $100 million in transactions this year, and has increased its merchant base to over 15,500 approved merchants in 200 countries. Since the announcement of the new All Inclusive Pricing Plan in October, along with the integration with Shopify in November, the number of new merchants has increased over 50% and the transaction volume has tripled.

 

“This year, the 2013 holiday season was Adafruit’s biggest ever. We are delighted to offer bitcoin payments via BitPay to our community and customers. It was fast and easy, hundreds of orders and happy customers getting educational electronics, using bitcoin!” shared Limor Fried, Founder and Engineer with Adafruit.

 

Bitcoin has “clear potential for growth and could become a major means of payment for online transactions” a Bank of America analyst told CNBC. As the number of Bitcoin users continues to increase, merchants such as Adafruit, BTCTrip, Alliance Virtual Offices, and Clearly Canadian, see the value of working with BitPay to help expand their business.

Which explains why Europe, which over a year was the first entity to cry foul about Bitcoin (recall from November 2012: “The ECB Explains What A Ponzi Scheme Is; Awkward Silence Follows“) when the USD-price of one BTC was still in the double digits, is doubling down in its fight against the fiat alternative, this time as the European Union’s top banking regulator is preparing to actively supervise the virtual currency. From Bloomberg:

Trading Bitcoins could bleed you dry, the European Union’s top banking regulator said as it weighs whether to regulate virtual currencies. Thefts from digital wallets have exceeded $1 million in some cases and traders aren’t protected against losses if their virtual exchange collapses, the European Banking Authority said today in a report warning consumers about the risks of cybermoney.

 

Virtual currencies such as Bitcoin have come under increased scrutiny from regulators and prosecutors around the globe. China’s central bank barred financial institutions from handling Bitcoin transactions last week and German police arrested two suspects in a fraud probe into illegally generated Bitcoins worth 700,000 euros ($963,000).

 

“The technology is still relatively immature and lacks the infrastructure, regulation and understanding of the risks that are taken for granted in conventional financial systems,” Matt Rees, assistant director at Ernst & Young LLP, said in an e-mail. “It is not surprising then that thefts, frauds and other deceptions are currently commonplace.”

 

Since Bitcoins exist as software, the virtual currency isn’t controlled by any government or central bank. The digital money emerged in 2008, designed by a programmer or group of programmers going under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto, whose real identity remains unknown.

 

The virtual currency gained credibility last month after law enforcement and securities agencies said in U.S. Senate hearings that it could be a legitimate means of exchange. The price of Bitcoins topped $1,000 as speculators anticipated broader use of digital money.

Because, you see, it is the possibility of theft that has regulators worried, not that alternative currencies could undermine the fiat system (especially in Europe where the artificially common currency is not exactly the world’s most admired construct) the world is so hooked on.

So what does Europe propose? Simple: do more of what it truly excels at: tax stuff.

People holding virtual currencies may be subject to value-added or capital gains taxes, the EBA said.

 

The government of Norway, Scandinavia’s richest nation, said it would treat Bitcoins as an asset and levy capital gains tax on them.

 

“Bitcoins don’t fall under the usual definition of money or currency,” Hans Christian Holte, director general of taxation in Norway, said in an interview.

 

For virtual currencies to be regulated in the EU, the EBA would have to get approval from the European Commission, the 28-nation bloc’s executive arm.

 

We “support the EBA warning to consumers on the risks associated with virtual currencies,” Michel Barnier, the EU’s financial services commissioner, said in an e-mail.

In other words, it is only a matter of time before Europe does all it can to make the use of Bitcoin even more prohibitive, which in a Europe that is flooded with bad debt, with a banking sector whose credibility is non-existent resulting in loan “creation” plunging at a record pace, and a banking union “resolution mechanism” that is as improbable now as it has ever been, means more deposit bail-ins in a form that “fall under the usual definition of money” are just a matter of time.


    



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