iftttwall

Submitted by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk via Bawerk.net,

In our latest Toward a New World Order, Part III we ended by promising to look closer at investment implications from the political and economic shift we currently find ourselves in; and that story must begin with the dollar. While known to the investing public for years, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) recently acknowledge that the real risk-off / risk-on metric in global markets is the dollar and nothing else.

In the chart below, which we recreated from an absolute brilliant presentation by Macro Intelligence 2 Partners via RealVision-TV, we see the potential scale of the coming “dollar-problem”.  The dollar moves in cycles as most things. The lower extreme around 84, only broken when Bernanke pushed through QE2, means financial conditions for emerging markets and other commodity producing economies have gotten so out of hand that conventional risk-metrics finally lead investors to pull back. The trigger, as can be seen in the chart, is often policy driven, but the underlying structural imbalance has been building for years, if not decades, prior.

Before we move on it is of utmost importance to understand that many of the dollar liabilities accumulated outside the United States are not backed by actual dollars, but are rather claims to dollar proper. This is the infamous Eurodollar market whereby banks, mostly international European ones, fund various economic activities by issuing claims to dollars, but for which no such dollars exists.  Think of it as another layer of fractional reserve lending on top of fractionally created money in the first place.

When risk metrics stray too far from what is considered prudent, investors start to pull money out from emerging markets, and obviously demand that their investments are paid out in dollars. To comply, international banks scramble to get hold of as many dollars as they can in the shortest time possible in order to fulfil their part of the bargain. The value of the dollar jumps as demand suddenly outstrips supply. Financial conditions in emerging markets tighten significantly and it becomes impossible to fund further expansion. Emerging market banks, with dollar liabilities and LCU assets are particularly vulnerable. The boom turns to bust as the Eurodollar market breaks. If the cycle gets out of hand, as it did from 2008 onwards, banking solvency is not only limited to local emerging market banks, but to the international banking community at large.

Taking a closer look at the previous dollar cycles, as represented by the real broad based dollar index we find that the initial shock pushes the dollar 20 – 25% higher from its low. It then pauses, drops 5% before starting a second leg higher (we outlined this process back in October). This is exactly where we are at now and if history repeats itself, which we believe it will, a new financial crisis is brewing just under the surface as the dollar moves into its second leg.

There are also other compelling arguments for the strong dollar case. If President-Elect Trump moves forward with his policy promises, such as changing the tax-system in accordance with the principle of destination based taxation; exports will be tax exempt, while imports will fully taxed at the corporate rate. The dollar may strengthen as much as 10 – 15% on this tax alone. Furthermore, if American companies repatriate some of their trillions held abroad it will put additional pressure on the price of dollars. Some may argue that dollars held in Wall Street are just as fungible as those held in Tokyo, Hong Kong or London, but given new money market regulations that may no longer be the case. Prime funds are starved of cash, while those investing in government bills are flush. It is therefore highly likely that repatriated cash will be stuck in New York money markets and create additional pressure on Eurodollar markets.

In Toward a New World Order, Part III we showed several structural breaks occurring in US economic time series after 2008. Similar breaks can be found throughout the world. These are all directly related to a broad based funding problem stemming from Eurodollar scarcity and a higher price of the dollar. While dollar-QE interrupted this downward trend intermittently, it was never a solution to the problem, which is one of misallocation of capital and malinvestments. QE only help fund capital consuming economic activities, commonly referred to as bubbles, and as soon as QE injections stop, capital reallocation toward a sustainable economic constellation resumes. QE is thus an extremely destructive policy as it depletes an already stretched pool of real savings available to fund economic projects.

We created a proxy for the state of the Eurodollar by summing up balance sheets of major European banks and what that simple exercise reveals is not a recession and weak recovery, but the ongoing depression that has been so detrimental to Western economies for the last ten years.

Our Eurodollar proxy peaks with the financial crisis, falls rapidly despite QE1 (which was a more technical program designed to fund shadow banks within the US and didn’t really increase the supply of dollars globally), but recovers slightly during QE2 with its focus of pushing dollars into the global system. It is interesting to note how different the proxy reacted to QE3, a program designed just as QE2.

Our proxy showed tentative signs of a global financial system finally able to adjust to the new reality. By late 2015 the Eurodollar market had stabilized. Forced by unforgiving market forces and zealous regulators, banks increased their capital ratios and scaled down. However, just as the system started to cope, our money masters in their infinite stupidity decided they wanted to force banks to re-leverage their balance sheets again in what can only be interpreted as a schizophrenic Leviathan; regulators (often within the central bank itself) told banks to deleverage, while central bank policies tried to make banks leverage. We are of course talking about negative interest rates. By charging banks to hold their excessive reserves at the central banks, the idea was that banks would feel compelled to invest money in the main street economy.

As is now clear to all, maybe with the exception of the Ph.Ds. polluting the world central banking community, negative interest are a deflationary force in itself. Yield curves crashed, net interest margins were squeezed, and with Main Street at peak debt, there have been little appetite for more debt. It has been such an abject failure that the Bank of Japan have more or less admitted their mistake by introducing yield curve control. That step was originally an attempt to steepen the yield curve, but has since backfired spectacularly as the JGB 10-yr rushed through the zero percent level with the election of Donald J. Trump for the US Presidency. Now they are forced to put a lid on JGBs in order to maintain the zero target.

Lastly, if the US current account deficit shrinks, as tariffs and arm-twisting make US Inc. think twice about moving production abroad or even re-shoring some of their existing capacity and a resurgent shale oil industry increase oil production on back of OPEC jawboning, the global dollar supply / demand imbalance will only be aggravated.

In 2017 we expect the dollar to gain another 10 – 20%. This will create immense pressure in several emerging markets such as Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil and India. While they have managed to reduce their current account deficits considerably, large amounts of dollar denominated liabilities need to be rolled over in 2017. The US, which currently experiences a mini-boom on the anticipation of Trump policies on top of large dollops government spending prior to the election, will head into recession as the Trump-amplifier turns out to be a dud. Deflation expectations re-emerge to the great surprise of most pundits, but a US led deflation will be nothing compared to what the inevitable Yuan devaluation (or stronger pace of depreciation) will create; in this respect, the German economy, with its heavy reliance on capital goods exports, looks particular vulnerable.

We expect gold to fall below USD1,000 per ounce (which will be a great buying opportunity).

Crude oil will probably fall into the low USD20s per barrel as the OPEC-deal fails to materialize and demand projections prove too optimistic. If OPEC fully comply with the announced deal inventories will start falling in Q1 2017 and provide data oil traders will justify further bullishness. In other words, short term, crude may move higher on OPEC and Trump, but in the medium term it is highly likely the glut will persist and pull the rug under all the bullish bets out there.

However, if OPEC cheats only 5% from the announced deal the first inventory drawdown will be postponed one year, and the cumulative inventory overhang will persist well into the 2020s.

Yield steepeners are in vogue today, but if the dollar thesis plays out as expected, you should load up on cheap yield flatteners in the “safe havens”.

The most important and interesting question though is this; what will the Fed do when they realize that their hiking cycle triggers the global risk-off trade? QE4? At that point everything we just said changes. QE4 will probably be the sign that velocity is about to take off and create the dreaded deflation-inflation whip-saw we expect over the longer term.

via http://ift.tt/2hnVtY3 Tyler Durden

As parents all around the country wake up this morning and instantly regret adding $1,000’s of dollars to their credit cards over the holidays (at a 30% interest rate nonetheless) so that little Johnny could have the latest iPad, gaming console and sneakers, here is a list of the states where consumers have racked up the most revolving debt.

Ironically, when color coded based on political preference, with the notable exception of Alaska, Democratic-leaning states seem to carry higher credit card debt balances than conservative states.  Imagine that, conservatives expect their government to run budgets the way they run their own households.

 

Meanwhile, as MarketWatch points out, in the worst states it would take the average family over a year and a half to pay off their credit debt if they contributed 15% of their median income to debt repayment.  But who wants to pay down credit card debt anyway?  We can’t very well have economic growth if people are unwilling to borrow all the way up to the point that they can no longer afford the minimum payment…right, Janet?

 

According to ValuPenguin, millennials carry an average credit card balance of $5,800 while, shockingly, even those American’s past retirement age are carrying credit card balances over $6,000 well into their 70’s. 

 

And, of course, the more you make the more you borrow…because why not?

 

Meanwhile, Experian’s State of Credit 2016 report highlights the top/bottom 10 cities in the United States based on credit score.  Minnesota and Wisconsin absolutely dominate that the top 10 list while California, Texas and Louisiana account for 8 out of the 10 worst cities.

 

Oh well, at least little Johnny will love the new Xbox and sneakers for at least a week and it made for a great Facebook pic!

via http://ift.tt/2hhEYcS Tyler Durden

In an unexpected escalation that was not the result of Israel’s angry response to Friday’s UN vote which passed a resolution condemning the country’s Palestinian settlements, and which the US refused to veto,  Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Monday called on French Jews to leave their country to protest a Paris-hosted conference planned for next month aimed at restarting Palestine-Israel peace talks, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth has reported.

Avigdor Lieberman

According to Turkey’s Anadolu news agency, the Israeli government has repeatedly stated in recent months that it would not participate in the conference, which is scheduled to be held on Jan. 15 with the participation of representatives from 70 countries. Speaking at a meeting of his right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, Lieberman reportedly said: “Perhaps it’s time to tell the Jews of France, ‘This isn’t your country, this isn’t your land. Leave France and come to Israel’.”

“That’s the only response to this plot,” Lieberman added, in reference to the planned conference.

He also criticized the timing of the event, which will be held shortly before French presidential elections. “With France going to elections soon, this is not the time for a peace summit,” the newspaper quoted Lieberman as saying. “It [the planned conference] is a tribunal against the State of Israel.” He added: “This summit’s entire purpose is to undermine the State of Israel’s security and tarnish its good name.”

According to the website of the Jewish Agency for Israel (a para-statal organization responsible for Jewish immigration to Israel), an estimated 1.5 million Jews live in Europe, roughly 600,000 of whom reside in France. According to Jewish Agency data, some 8,000 French Jews immigrated to Israel last year. An earlier report issued by the Israeli prime minister’s office found that 6,655 Jews had departed France for Israel in 2014, compared with 3,293 the previous year.

* * *

Then, in an expected escalation that was the result of Friday’s UN vote, CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported that Israel has suspended “working ties” with 12 nations that voted for a United Nations resolution condemning settlements. The suspension of diplomatic ties comes after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow last week to exact a “diplomatic and economic price” from the countries on the UN Security Council that passed the resolution, 14-0.

Breaking: #Israel suspends “working ties” with all 12 nations who voted for UN resolution on settlements – sources tell @eliselabottcnn

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) December 26, 2016

Those countries are: Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Senegal and New Zealand https://t.co/NBpHt9PpZd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) December 26, 2016

What it means: PM Netanyahu will not meet w/foreign ministers of those countries & their ambs will not be received at Israel’s FM

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) December 26, 2016

The countries were Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Senegal and New Zealand, Malaysia. Israel does not have diplomatic ties with Venezuela or Malaysia, which also voted for the resolution.

Meanwhile, back in the US, Newt Gingrich continued his outspoken ways, and slammed President Obama for not vetoing the resolution, likening the move to a “war” against the key ally in the Middle East. “Why is the Obama team waging war against Israel? Why are they taking steps to isolate and then kill a democracy and an ally?” Gingrich tweeted.

“President-elect Trump must prepare a comprehensive offensive for Jan 29 to undo the damage to Israel the Obama team is inflicting.”

“Congress should pass resolutions January 3-4 condemning Obama attacks on Israel and demanding he not participate in French or (U.N. Security Council) attacks,” Gingrich, a key Trump ally, wrote online.

The move was the culmination of years of strained ties between the White House and Israel over the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump was fiercely opposed to the resolution and vowed U.S. policy toward Israel will change when he takes office.

Then again, one wonders how much of the drama in the last few days is merely spoon-fed for public consumption: despite the alleged tension between the US and Iseael, Obama approved a $38 Billion military aid package to Israel in September, the largest in U.S. history.

The 10-year aid packages underpin Washington’s Congressionally mandated requirement to help maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in the region. According to the MOU, at least $3.8 billion a year in aid, up from $3.1 billion annually under the current pact, would be provided to Israel. Netanyahu had originally sought upwards of $4.5 billion a year. The new package for the first time will incorporate money for Israeli missile defense, which until now has been funded ad hoc by Congress. U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in annual discretionary funds for this purpose.

In short, ignore the pointed rhetoric and focus on the actions.

via http://ift.tt/2ixKdGz Tyler Durden

Submitted by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

The U.S. is beginning to wind down one of the core energy security policies of the past half century as the boom in domestic drilling eases concerns about supply.

(Click to enlarge)

The U.S. Department of Energy could begin to sell off some of its strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) as soon as January, the beginning of a multi-year process to shrink the nation’s stockpile of oil. Congress has authorized DOE to sell off $375.4 million worth of oil in its recent budget resolution. The DOE said that such a sale could be held in January 2017.

To be sure, part of the motivation to sell crude is to finance upkeep for the SPR itself. The reserves are held in salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas, setup decades ago in the aftermath of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. The SPR system can hold more than 700 million barrels of oil, the largest strategic stockpile in the world. The idea is that the SPR holds 90 days’ worth of oil supplies, which could be released in the event of a global outage. A release has only occurred a handful of times, such as the Persian Gulf War, Hurricane Katrina and the Arab Spring.

Some of the storage systems are rusting and corroding after decades of use. In September, the DOE issued a report to Congress, which came to a dire conclusion about the condition of the reserve. “This equipment today is near, at, or beyond the end of its design life,” the report said. The sale "will allow the Department to take necessary steps to increase the integrity and extend the life” of the reserve, a DOE spokesperson said in December after the budget resolution was passed.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the SPR to U.S. energy policy. In fact, some analysts would argue the U.S. does not really have a comprehensive energy security policy. There is no coherent theory, policy or philosophy driving U.S. energy security concerns, other than the U.S. military policing the world to ensure the security of supply, a mission that has governed American actions abroad since the Carter administration at least.

The one cornerstone of energy security policy has been the SPR. As long as the U.S. had 3 months’ worth of supply, it could weather unexpected disruptions. The International Energy Agency was setup in the 1970s as well, and participating members – in addition to the U.S., the group includes Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand – also have pledged to hold a 90-day supply.

But U.S. policymakers no longer view the SPR is all that important. Even the more hawkish members of Congress have been lulled into a sense of security from the surge in U.S. oil production and the resulting crash in oil prices. The world is awash in oil, so why does the U.S. need to stockpile such a massive volume of oil at great expense? The ostensible reason of selling off oil from the SPR is to finance its maintenance to ensure its existence over the long-term, but if the Congress still truly believed in the importance of the SPR, they would have found funding elsewhere instead of reducing the stockpile.

Indeed, some of the proceeds from the sale of oil will go towards other uses beyond paying for repairs, namely, the U.S. treasury, which belies the notion that the sales are simply for upkeep. The sales are only occurring because U.S. policymakers are no longer concerned about the security of oil supply for the U.S. economy.

Various pieces of legislation have put the U.S. on a path to sell off 190 million barrels of oil from the stockpile gradually over the next decade. The sales are slated to take in $2 billion by 2020 to finance maintenance.

(Click to enlarge)

Beyond the question about the SPR’s relevance to U.S. energy security, a few other issues come to mind. First, the sale of oil from the SPR will occur at a moment of unusually low oil prices. The government could have taken twice as much revenue if it had sold the oil a few years ago instead of today when WTI trades for $50 per barrel. In the event that the U.S. decides to replenish the stockpile at some future moment, it will probably do so in a higher price environment. Selling low and buying high, any investor will tell you, is not a wise strategy.

A more immediate question is how the SPR sales will affect global supplies today. The release of oil will occur in already oversupplied market, and while the volumes are not huge, they will add pressure to prices. "Given stretched bullish positioning and the toppy state of inventories at Cushing, the sales of SPR oil could temporarily curb incentives for barrels in Cushing to flow to the U.S. Gulf Coast," Barclays analysts recently said. The oil could reach the market in March or April, just "as refineries exit their turnabouts, but that could still steepen the WTI contango," the Barclays analysts added.

“The DOE could not have picked a worse time to test the market,” said Bob van der Valk, senior editor at The Bakken Oil Business Journal, according to MarketWatch.com

via http://ift.tt/2hI2MHY Tyler Durden

The big theme for 2017 will be Cash… not a pro-deflationary “time to own cash” theme… but a “let’s ban it as quickly as possible” theme.

Let’s review.

In 2016:

1)   Former Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers, called for the US to do away with the $100 bill.

2)   Former Chief Economist for the IMF, Ken Rogoff, published his book The Curse of Cash.

3)   The New York Times and Financial Times publicly endorse a ban on cash.

4)   Fed Chair Janet Yellen, during a Q&A session said cash is “not a convenient store of value.”

Of course the above items are simply propaganda and words. But 2016 also featured major actions as far as the War on Cash is concerned…

The 7^th largest country in the world by GDP (India) banned physical cash in denominations that comprise over 80% of all outstanding bills.

The move was a political disaster… temporarily, but no one was forced out of office and the legislation remains in place.

The message here: you can get away with this kind of thing… even in a country in which physical cash is STILL the dominant form of currency.

Venezuela has since followed suit, banning any bill that is worth more than 3 cents. There as well, the policy was met with political outrage… but the ruling part/people remain in power and no one was forced out of office over the matter.

Put simply, 2016 was the year in which the 7^th and 33^rd largest nations by GDP went effectively cashless… and no one lost their jobs over it.

You can imagine the glee the elites felt witnessing this… particularly in countries in which 50%+ of transactions no longer involve physical cash (60%+ in most developed nations).

After all, the only thing these people do worry about is losing their jobs. Provided no one is kicked out of office as a consequence, any policy, no matter how terrible, is considered viable to this crowd.

Which is why 2017 will shape up to be the year of the Global Cash Bans.

Numerous developed nations (France, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, etc.) have already banned cash for certain transactions. Next year (2017) is the year we expect to start seeing policy pushes for complete bans on cash.

Indeed, we've uncovered a secret document outlining how the Fed plans to incinerate savings in the coming months.

We detail this paper and outline three investment strategies you can implement

right now to protect your capital from the Fed's sinister plan in our Special Report

Survive the Fed's War on Cash.

We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

To pick up yours, swing by….

http://ift.tt/2hvMItg

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2ikHdOe Phoenix Capital Research

Police in Belgium are probing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of a high ranking NATO official – the auditor general, whose responsibilities included probing terror financing – after his body was discovered in his car with a gunshot wound to the head.

As SudInfo reports, troubling elements accumulate around the death of Yves Chandelon, a senior official of the NATO based in Luxembourg, who lived in Lens, near Tournai.

The man was found dead on Friday in Andenne, with a bullet in his head. An autopsy was performed on Tuesday. The family does not believe it was suicide as many have reported.

 

Did Yves Chandelon have any enemies? Was he threatened in the course of his work in NATO? Was it an odious crime made to look like suicide, or did the man go through a troubled period? For his relatives, the incomprehension is total.

The 62-year-old auditor general of NATO was found in the Belgian town of Andenne, 62 miles away from his home and office in Lens on December 16. As The Express reports,

As Auditor General, Mr Chandelon was responsible for internal accounting at NSPA as well as external investigations into money laundering activities and terrorist financing – and more bizarrely it has been reported locally that the gun which killed him was found in the glovebox of the vehicle.

 

According to local newspaper reports Mr Chandelon was the registered keeper of three weapons however the gun found at the scene did not belong to him, it has been claimed.

 

Police are currently probing whether he had received any threats that could be related to his work and highlighted that the gun used was not registered in his name.

 

According to Flemish newspaper 'The Morning', Mr Chandelon's relatives said he attended his office Christmas party the night before he died.

Reporting gets even more confusing as LaMeuse carried two reports with additional facts about Chandelon’s death. The first stated that a “farewell letter” was found in Chandelon’s car. The second stated that the gun used in the apparent suicide was found in his right hand, despite the fact that Chandelon was left-handed.

It has been reported that the former director of The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Luxembourg had complained of getting strange telephone calls before he died and "felt threatened".

We are sure the facts will all come out and this 'strange' episode will be brushed under the carpet – like the mysterious deaths of various senior European bankers over the past few years.

via http://ift.tt/2hhxjv6 Tyler Durden

Here’s another shit post — because things are slow. This one goes out to the democratic party, those Vlad haters out there this holiday season.

If you’ve ever wondered why Putin appeals to so many stable minded people in the United States, look no further than this speech where the Russian leader lays into Euro-Atlantic nations for abandoning its Christian roots, placing homosexual relationships on the same level as families, fomenting an environment for paedophilia and creating an atmosphere which will eventually lead to the degradation of civility — leading to the loss of dignity.

Powerful stuff.

 

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

via http://ift.tt/2hHQuPM The_Real_Fly

Submitted by Ronan Manly via BullionStar.com,

Introduction

In the world of gold market reportage, much is written about gold futures prices, with the vast majority of reporting concentrating on the CME’s COMEX contracts. Indeed, when it comes to COMEX gold, a veritable cottage industry of websites and commentators makes its bread and butter commentating on COMEX gold price gyrations and the scraps of news connected to the COMEX. The reason for the commentators’ COMEX fixation is admittedly because that’s where the trading volume is. But such fixation tends to obscure the fact that there is another set of gold futures contracts on ‘The Street’, namely the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) gold futures contracts that trade on the ICE Futures US platform.

These ICE gold futures see little trading volume. Nonetheless, they have a setup and infrastructure rivaling that of COMEX gold futures, for example, in the reporting of the gold inventories from the vault providers that have been approved and licensed by ICE for delivery of gold against its gold futures contracts.

At the end of each trading day, both CME and ICE publish reports showing warehouse inventories of gold in Exchange licensed facilities/depositories which meet the requirements for delivery against the Exchanges’ gold futures contracts. These inventories are reported in two categories, Eligible gold and Registered gold. Many people will be familiar with the COMEX version of the report. A lot less people appear to know about the ICE version of the report. For all intents and purposes they are similar reports with identical formats.

Most importantly, however, both reports are technically incorrect for the approved vaults that they have in common because neither Exchange report takes into account the Registered gold reported by the other Exchange. Therefore, the non-registered gold in each of the vaults in common is being overstated, in a small way for COMEX, and in a big way for ICE. And since COMEX and ICE have many approved vaults in common, technically this is a problem.

The Background

Before looking at the issues surrounding the accuracy of the reports, here is some background about CME and ICE which explains how both Exchanges ended up offering gold futures contracts using vaults in New York. The Commodity Exchange (COMEX) launched gold futures on 31 December 1974, the date on which the prohibition on private ownership of gold in the US was lifted. In 1994, COMEX became a subsidiary of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

In 2001, Euronext acquired the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange (LIFFE) to form the Euronext.LIFFE futures exchange. In April 2007, NYSE and Euronext merged to form NYSE Euronext. Following the merger with NYSE, this merged futures exchange was renamed NYSE Liffe US.

In July 2007, Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) merged with the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and CME and CBOT both became subsidiaries of ‘CME Group Inc’. CBOT had traded a 100 oz gold futures contract from 2004 and a ‘CBOT mini-sized’ gold futures contract (33.2 ozs) from 2001. During 2007, NYSE Euronext had also been attempting to acquire CBOT at the same time as CME.

In August 2008, the CME Group acquired NYMEX (as well as COMEX), and NYMEX (including COMEX) became a fully-owned subsidiary of holding company CME Group Inc. Just prior to acquiring NYMEX/COMEX and its precious metals products, the CME sold the CBOT products to NYSE Euronext in March 2008. This included the CBOT 100 oz and mini gold futures contracts, and the CBOT options on gold futures. NYSE Euronext then added these gold contract products to its NYSE Liffe US platform.

The Inventory Reports

Each afternoon New York time, CME publishes a COMEX ‘Metal Depository Statistics’ report for the previous trading day’s gold inventory activity, which details gold inventory positions (in troy ounces) as well as changes in those positions within its approved vault facilities at Brink’s, Delaware Depository, HSBC, IDS Delaware, JP Morgan, Malca-Amit, MTB and Scotia. The COMEX report is published as an Excel file called Gold_Stocks and its uploaded as the same filename to the same CME Group public directory each day. Therefore it gets overwritten each day: http://ift.tt/2ixmCW8Gold_Stocks.xls.

Below are screenshots of this COMEX report for activity date Friday 16 December 2016 (end of week), which were reported on Monday 19 December 2016. For each depository, the report lists prior total of gold reported by that depository, the activity for that day (gold received or withdrawn) and the resulting updated total for that day. The report also breaks down the total of each depository into ‘Registered’, and ‘Eligible’ gold categories.

Eligible gold is all the gold residing in a reporting facility / vault  which is acceptable by the Exchange for delivery against its gold futures contracts and for which a warrant (see below) has not been issued, i.e. the bars are of acceptable size, gold purity and bar brand. In practice, this just applies to 100 oz and 1 kilo gold bars. This ‘eligible gold’ could be gold owned by anyone, and it does not necessarily have any connection to the gold futures traders on that Exchange.

For example, 400 oz gold bars in a COMEX or ICE approved vault would not be eligible gold. Neither would 100 oz bars or kilo bars arriving in a vault if  the bars had been outside the chain of custody and had not yet been assayed.

Registered gold is eligible gold (acceptable gold) for which a vault has issued a warehouse receipt (warrant). These warrants are documents of title issued by the vault in satisfaction of delivery of a gold futures contract, i.e. the vault receipts are delivered in settlement of the futures contract. This is analogous to set-aside or earmarked gold.

For the COMEX 100 oz gold futures contract (GC), physical delivery can be either through 1 unit of a 100 troy ounce gold bar, or 3 units of 1 kilo bars, therefore eligible gold on the CME report would include 100 troy ounces bars of gold, minimum 995 fineness, CME approved brand, and 1 kilo gold bars, CME approved brand. The CME E-Mini gold futures contract (QO) is exclusively cash settled and has no bearing on the licensed vault report. CME E-micro gold futures (MGC) can indirectly settle against the CME 100 oz GC contract through ‘Accumulated Certificates of Exchange’ (ACEs) which represent a 10% claim on a GC (100 oz) warrant. Therefore, the only gold bars reported included on the CME Metal Depository Statistics reports are 100 oz and 1 kilo gold bars.

 

COMEX Warehouse Inventory Report – Gold. Click to Enlarge

Each afternoon New York time, ICE publishes a “Metal Vault Statistics” report as an Excel file which is uploaded to an ICE public web directory. The report lists the previous trading day’s gold inventory activity, and like the CME report, shows gold inventory positions and changes in those positions (receipts and withdrawals) in troy ounces within its approved vault facilities. The ICE report also breaks down the total of each depository into ‘Registered’ and ‘Eligible’ gold.

The ICE licensed vault reports are saved as individually dated reports. The ICE report dated 19 December 2016 for activity on 16 December 2016, can be seen at http://ift.tt/2ixyWWm.

Two gold futures contracts trade on ICE Futures US, a 100 oz gold futures contract (ZG), and a Mini gold futures contract (YG). YG which has a contract size of 32.15 troy ounces (1 kilo). Both of these ICE gold contracts can be physically settled. The gold reported on the ICE Metal Vault Statistics report therefore comprises 100 oz and 1 kilo gold bars that are ICE approved brands. In practice, CME and ICE approved brands are the same brands.

ICE Warehouse Inventory Report – Gold. Click to Enlarge

The Rules

The data required to be conveyed to CME each day by the approved depositories is covered in NYMEX Rulebook Chapter 7, section 703.A.7 which states that:

“on a daily basis, the facility shall provide, in an Exchange-approved format, the following information regarding its stocks:

• a. The total quantity of registered metal stored at the facility.
• b. The total quantity of eligible metal stored at the facility.
• c. The quantity of eligible metal and registered metal received and shipped from the facility.”

The ICE Futures US documentation on gold futures does not appear to specifically cover the data that its approved vaults are required to send to ICE each day. Neither does it appear to be covered in the old NYSE Liffe Rulebook from 2014. In practice, since ICE generate a report for each trading day which is very similar to the CME version of the report, then it’s realistic to assume that the vaults send the same type of data to ICE. But as you will see below, the vaults seem to just send each Exchange a ‘number’ specifying the registered amount of gold connected to warrants related to the Exchange, and then another ‘number’ for acceptable gold that is not registered to warrants connected to that Exchange.

The Comparisons

What is immediately obvious when looking at the CME and ICE reports side by side is:

• a) they are both reporting the same total amounts of gold at each of the approved facilities (vaults) that they have in common, and also reporting the same receipts and withdraws to and from each vault. This would be as expected.
• b) CME and ICE are reporting different amounts of ‘Registered’ gold at each facility because they only report on the gold Registered connected to their respective Exchange contracts…
• c)… which means that CME and ICE are also reporting different amounts of ‘eligible’ gold at each approved facility that they have in common.

In other words, because neither Exchange takes into account the ‘Registered’ gold at the other Exchange, each of CME and ICE is overstating the amount of Eligible gold at each of the vaults that they both report on.

Brink’s Example

Look at the below Brinks vault line items as an example. For activity date Friday 16 December 2016, CME states that at the end of the day there were 588,468.428 troy ounces of gold Registered, leaving 223,946.744 ounces in Eligible, and 812,415.172 ounces in Total. ICE also states the same Total amount of 812,415.195 ounces (probably differs by 0.023 ozs due to rounded balances carried forward), but from ICE’s perspective, its report lists that there were 321.51 ounces (10 kilo bars) registered in this Brink’s vault, so therefore ICE states that there are 812,093.685 ounces of eligible gold in the Brinks vaults. However, CME has 588,468.428 troy ounces of gold ‘earmarked’ or Registered against the total amount of reported 100 oz and 1 kilo gold bars in the Brink’s facility. In practice, if the situation ever arose, the Brink’s vault could issue warrants against ICE gold futures of more than 223,635.234 ozs, because this is the maximum amount of eligible gold in the vault which is neither registered with the COMEX exchange or registered with the ICE exchange.

CME Brinks gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

ICE Brinks gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

Therefore in this example, both the CME and ICE reports are not fully correct, but the ICE report is far ‘more’ incorrect than the CME report because the ICE report substantially understates the true amount of Eligible (non-registered) gold in the Brink’s vault. This trend is evident across most ‘Eligible’ numbers for the vaults in the ICE report. Since the trading volume in ICE gold futures is very low overall, the number of ICE gold futures contracts that have ultimately generated warrants is also very low.

Although the relatively tiny amounts of ‘Registered’ ounces listed on the ICE report won’t really affect the overall accuracy of the COMEX reporting, a more correct approach to reflect reality would be for the vault providers to combine the Registered numbers from the two Exchanges, and subtract this combined amount from the reported Total at each facility so as to derive an accurate and real Eligible amount for each vault facility.

MTB Example

But what about a scenario in which very little non-registered gold is actually left in a vault right now due to a high Registered amount having been generated from COMEX activity? In such a situation, the ICE report will overestimate the amount of Eligible gold in a big way and a reader of that report would be oblivious of this fact. This is the case for the Manfra, Tordella & Brookes (MTB) vault data on the ICE report.

According to the CME report, as of Friday 16 December, there were 104,507.221 ozs of gold in the MTB vault in the form of acceptable 100 oz or 1 kilo bars, with 99,698.357 ozs of this gold registered against warrants for COMEX, and only 4,808.864 ozs not Registered (i.e. Eligible to be Registered).

CME MTB gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

The ICE report for the same date and same vault states that there are the same amount of Total ounces in the vault i.e. 104,507.217 ounces (0.004 oz delta). However, the ICE report states that 104,153.567 ozs are Eligible to be registered, since from ICE’s perspective, only 353.65 ozs (11 kilo bars) are actually Registered. But this ICE Eligible figure is misleading since there are a combined 100,052.007 ozs (99,698.357 ozs + 353.65 ozs) Registered between the 2 Exchanges, and only another 4,455.214 ozs of Eligible gold in total in the vault.

ICE MTB gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

IDS Delaware Example

The reporting for International Depository Services (IDS) of Delaware is probably the most eye-opening example within the entire set of vault providers, because when looking at the 2 reports side by side, it becomes clear that there is no ‘Eligible’ (non-Registered) gold in the entire vault. CME states that 675.15 ozs (21 kilo bars) are Registered and that 514.4 ozs (16 kilo bars) are Eligible, giving a total of 1,189.55 ozs (37 kilo bars), but ICE states that 514.4 ozs (16 kilo bars) are Registered and thinks that 675.15 ozs (21 kilo bars) are Eligible. But in reality, between the two Exchanges, the entire 1,189.55 ozs (37 kilo bars) is Registered and there are zero ozs Eligible to be Registered. CME thinks whatever is not Registered is Eligible, and ICE thinks likewise. But all 37 kilo bars are Registered by the combined CME and ICE. IDS therefore sums up very well the dilemma created by the Exchanges not taking into account the warrants held against each other’s futures contracts.

ICE IDS gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

 

ICE IDS gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

Delaware Depository Example

Based on a report comparison, Delaware Depository (DD) is unusual in that there are different ‘Total’ amounts reported by each of CME and ICE. CME states that there are 110,336.484 ozs of acceptable gold in the DD vault, whereas ICE states that there are 112,008.284 ozs. This difference is 1,671.80 ozs which is equivalent to 52 kilo bars. So, for some unexplained reason, the vault has provided different total figures to CME and ICE.

CME Delaware Dep gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

 

ICE Delaware Dep gold – Report date: 19 December 2016, Activity date: 16 December 2016

The above comparison exercise can be performed for the other 3 vaults that both CME and ICE have in common, namely the 3 bank vaults of HSBC, JP Morgan and Scotia. These 3 vaults  hold the largest quantities of metal in the entire series of New York area licensed vaults. The ICE contracts have very tiny registered amounts in these vaults, but the Eligible amounts listed on the ICE report for these vaults should technically take account of the Registered amounts listed on the CME report for these same 3 vaults.

The licensed vault that is unique to CME, i.e. the vault of Malca-Amit, surprisingly only reports holding 1060.983 ozs of gold (33 kilo bars), with all 33 bars reported as Registered. This is surprising since given that Malca operates a vault in the recently built International Gem Tower on West 47th Street, one would expect that Malca would be holding far more than just 33 gold kilo bars which would only take up a tiny amount of shelf space.

The two vaults that are unique to ICE, namely CMT and Loomis, also report holding only small amounts of acceptable gold. CNT has 9966.154 ozs (310 kilo bars), 90% of which is Registered, while Loomis reports holding just 7064.07 ozs, all of which is non-registered. 

Conclusion

In gold futures physical settlement process, it’s the responsibility of the exchanges (COMEX and ICE) to assign the delivery (of a warrant) to a specific vault (the vault which is ‘stopped’ and whose warehouse receipt represents the gold delivered). Presumably, the settlement staff at both CME and ICE both know about each other’s registered amounts at the approved vaults, and obviously the vaults do since they track the warrants. But then, if this is so, why not indicate this on the respective reports?

The CME and ICE reports both have disclaimers attached as footnotes:

CME states:

“The information in this report is taken from sources believed to be reliable; however, the Commodity Exchange, Inc. disclaims all liability whatsoever with regard to its accuracy or completeness. This report is produced for information purposes only.”

ICE states:

“The Exchange has made every attempt to provide accurate and complete data. The information contained in this report is compiled for you convenience and is furnished for informational purpose only without responsibility for accuracy.”

The exact definition of ‘Eligible’, taken from the COMEX Rulebook, is as follows:

“Eligible metal shall mean all such metal that is acceptable for delivery against the applicable metal futures contract for which a warrant has not been issued“

However, in the case of ICE, its report is vastly overstating figures for Eligible gold at the vaults in which COMEX is reporting large registered amounts. In these cases, a warrant has been issued against the metal, it’s just not for ICE contracts, but for the contracts of its competitor, the COMEX. Surely, at a minimum, these footnote disclaimers of the ICE and CME vault inventory reports should begin to mention this oversight?

via http://ift.tt/2hnwQLh Tyler Durden

When it comes to propping up the stock market in the US, the Federal Reserve does so with a certain degree of nuance, keeping at least one layer of disintermediation between itself and the market, which usually involves “advising” Citadel to intervene when it comes to acute moments of market stress, granting the HFT-heavy hedge fund a green light to stop and reverse and violent selloffs, or more traditionally, allowing companies to repurchase their own stock thanks to (until recently) record low interest rates.

This is nothing new: as Goldman has repeatedly pointed out, in 2016 corporations have been the largest source of equity demand, purchasing $450 billion of US equity through buybacks and cash M&A (net of share issuance). Outside of the Great Recession, corporates have been the primary source of US equity demand (see Exhibit 1).

Furthermore, Goldman recently predicted that as a result of Trump’s proposed repatriation tax holiday, buybacks in 2017 will surge even more, to wit:

Buybacks ($780 billion, +30%) will rise sharply in 2017. Our economists expect tax reform legislation will pass during 2H 2017. President-elect Trump and House Republicans have expressed support for a one-time tax on previously untaxed foreign profits as part of their tax reform proposals. We forecast that S&P 500 firms will repatriate $200 billion of their total $1 trillion of cash held overseas in 2017 and spend $150 billion of the repatriated funds on share repurchases. Managements generally remain committed to buybacks, which will benefit from 2% US GDP growth and ex-Energy earnings growth of 6%.

None of that should be news to regular readers, however it is worth repeating that the primary source of demand for US equities are the stock-issuing corporations themselves, who – in a page right out of Baron Munchausen – continue to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with the blessings of the Federal Reserve’s cheap money. That may soon be changing, however, now that rates have spiked higher and announced buyback have tumbled 28% Y/Y according to FactSet.

Meanwhile, in Japan, the BOJ had taken a less “stealthy” approach, and as has been the case for years, the Japanese central bank under Kuroda has had far fewer qualms about intervening directly in the equity markets by purchasing either ETFs, REITs or single name securities.

Did we say “less stealthy?” We meant the central bank is now intervening directly in the stock market with all the finesse of a stock bull in a china store (just not Chinese china, it’s a patriotic thing), and according to a report by the Nikkei, the Bank of Japan is set to become the biggest buyer of ETFs  in 2016 for the second straight year, in the process masking a srecent surge in foreign investor selling.

According to data through Thursday, the value of the BOJ’s ETF purchases this year has topped 4.3 trillion yen ($36.5 billion), up 40% from 2015. Last year, the central bank bought more than 3 trillion yen worth of ETFs. The data was released by the BOJ and compiled by the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Should it continue at this rate, in a few years, the BOJ will have nationalized the entire market: as of this moment it own approximately 2.5% of the market cap of the entire Topix according to the FT chart below.

As the FT recently noted, “the central bank’s overwhelming dominance of ETFs, combined with the structural oddities of Japan’s most famous but esoteric equity benchmark, the price-weighted Nikkei 225 Average, has given the BoJ indirect but massive positions in many of the country’s biggest corporate names.” Normally, this kind of activity would be associated with command-style, centrally-planned economies such as that of the USSR. Now, however, it is considered part of the “new normal.”

As the BOJ bought, foreign investors sold…  a lot; in fact more than a net 3.5 trillion yen worth of Japanese shares through Dec. 16. These sales were “offset” by the BOJ’s intervention, traditionally through trust banks, including those commissioned by the Government Pension Investment Fund, to buy a net 3.5 or so trillion yen worth of shares.

What is scarier, however, is the BOJ’s own direct intervention: the figure for trust banks was below that for the BOJ, which “will become the largest buyer of ETFs this year,” said Masatoshi Kikuchi of Mizuho Securities.

This year, the central bank increased its buying after doubling its annual ETF goal to purchase 3 trillion yen worth of the instruments. The decision came in July as the bank stepped harder on its yen-printing pedal. The central bank’s ultimate goal is to flood the economy with so much money that prices get moving predictably upward again; the BOJ is targeting a 2% inflation rate. Instead, one day it will create a currency crisis, as faith in the Yen collapses and unleash hyperinflation. We are not there just yet, though.

The value of the bank’s ETF holdings, based on purchase prices, is 11 trillion yen. However, unrealized gains send the market value to 14 trillion yen, according to an estimate by Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai Asset Management, Nikkei added. 

And while foreigners have bought more than a net 2 trillion yen of Japanese shares since November, when Trump was elected president, the amount does not offset their selling in the first half of 2016. Furthermore, there is speculation that the Trump rally is on its last legs, and the next move will be lower. This has already been noted in the USDJPY which has fallen for 4 straight days.

The BOJ’s ETF program has propped up share prices but distorted “the formation of stock prices,” said Shingo Ide of NLI Research Institute. Alternatively, one could say that the BOJ’s ETF program has made the very definition of “market” a joke. The ETF-buying program allows, and in fact mandates, that the central bank purchase a wide range of stocks regardless of the issuing companies’ business results. This means that zombie companies which would otherwise be insolvent and bankrupt, are kept artificially alive thanks to central bank intervention, which in turn leads to deflation as in the race to the bottom, “zombie companies” around the globe are willing to undersell all their competitors in “hail Mary” hopes of survival, leading to lower interest rates and even more central bank intervention.

via http://ift.tt/2hhqEBg Tyler Durden

Bah, Humbug…

 

Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

via http://ift.tt/2hnoV0v Tyler Durden