Tag: news

From Russ Certo, head of rates at Brean Capital

Two Roads Diverged

As we know, it has been a suspect week with a variety of earnings misses.  Although I have been constructive on risk asset markets generally, equities anecdotally, as figured year end push for alpha desires could let it run into year end.  New year and ball game can change quickly.  Just wondering if a larger rotation is in order.                        

There is an overall considerable theme of what you may find when a liquidity tide recedes as most major crises or risk pullbacks have been precipitated by either combination of tighter monetary or fiscal policy.  Some with a considerable lag like a year after Greenspan departed from Fed helm, or many other examples.  I’m not suggesting NOW is a time for a compression in risk but am aware of the possibility, especially when Fed Chairs take victory laps, Bernanke this week.  Symbolic if nothing more.       Cover of TIME magazine?

I happen to think that 2014 is a VERY different year than 2013 from a variety of viewpoints.  First, there appears to be a dispersion of opinion about markets, valuations, policy frameworks and more.  This is a healthy departure from YEARS of artificiality.  Artificiality in valuations, artificiality in market and policy mechanics and essentially artificiality in EVERY financial, and real, relationship on the planet based on central bank(s) balance sheet expansion and other measures intended to be a stop-gap resolution to  tightening financial conditions, adverse expectations of economic activity, and the great rollover….of both financial and non-financial debt financing.       Boy, what a week in the IG issuance space with over $100 billion month to date, maybe $35 billion on the week.        Debt rollover on steroids.        

Beneath the veneer of market aesthetics, I already see fundamental (and technical) relevance.  This could be construed as an optimist pursuit or reality that markets are incrementally transcending reliance and/or dependence on the wings of central bank policy prerogatives.  The market bird is trying to fly on its own with inklings of a return to FUNDAMENTAL analysis.  A good thing, conceptually, and gradualist development of passing the valuation baton back to market runners.  A likely major pillar objective of policy despite more than a few critics worried about seemingly dormant lurking imbalances created by immeasurable policy and monetary and fundamentally skewed risk asset relationships globally. 

This exercise of summarization of ebb and flow and comings and goings of markets and policy naturally funnels a discussion to what stature of central bank policy currently or accurately exists?  Current events.  What is the accurate stage of policy?

I actually think this is a more delicate nuance than I perceive viewed in overall market sentiment. Granted, we have taken a major step for mankind, which is the topical engagement of some level of scope or reduction of liquidity provisioning,” not tightening.”  Tip of the iceberg communique with markets to INTRODUCE the concept of stepping off the gas but not hitting the break.  Reeks of fragility to me but narrative headed in right direction to stop medicating the patient, the global economy.

Some markets have logically responded in kind.  The highest beta markets as either beneficiaries or vulnerable to monetary policy changes, the emerging markets, have reflected at least the optics of change with policy.  More auditory than optics in hearing a PROSPECTIVE change in garbled Fedspeak.  The high flyer currencies which capture the nominal flighty hot money flows globally affirmed the Fed message. 

In literally the simplest of terms, the G7 industrialized, not peripheral; interest rate complex has simply moved the needle in form of +110 basis point higher moves in nominal sovereign interest rates.  And there are a bevy of other expressions which played nicely and rightly conformed to the messages coming out of the central bank sandbox.  But there are ALSO notable dichotomies, which send a different or even the opposite message.

I perceive a deviation in perception of message as some markets or market participants appear to be betting on taper or a return to normalcy in global growth or U.S. growth outcomes???  OR no taper, or conversely QE4 or whatever.  Sovereign spreads have moved materially tighter vs. industrial and supposed risk free rates (Tsys, Gilts, Bunds) both last year and in the first three weeks of 2014. Something a new leg of QE would represent, not a taper.   A different year!!!

There have been VERY reliable risk asset market beta correlations over the last 5 years and sovereign or peripheral spreads have been AS volatile and correlated as any asset class.  These things trade like dancing with a rattle-snake.  Greece, Spain, France etc.  They can bite you with fangs.  They have been meaningfully more correlated to high yield spreads and yields and to central bank balance sheet expansion as nearly any asset class.  So, the infusion of central bank liquidity into markets has seen “relief” rallies in peripherals and one would think the converse would be true as well.  The valuations have represented the flavor and direction of risk on/risk off or liquidity on/liquidity off reliably for many months/years.

But I THOUGHT markets were deliberating tapering views and expressions as validated by some good soldier markets BUT that is not necessarily what the rally in riskiest of sovereign “credits” is suggesting.  The complex seems to be decoupling with Fed balance sheet correlation and message.  Some are OVER 100 standard deviations from the mean!  They are rich and could/should be sold.     Especially if one was to follow the obvious correlation with the direction of central bank as stated.

But look to other arena’s like TIPS breakevens which also have been correlated with liquidity and risk on/off and central bank balance sheet expansion.  Correlated to NASDAQ, HY, peripherals and the like.   BUT this complex COUNTERS what peripherals are doing.  They haven’t shown up to the punch bowl party yet.  Not invited.      This is a departure of markets that have largely and generally been in synch from a liquidity and performance correlation view.

Like gold and silver which got tattooed vis a vis down 35%+ performance last year MOSTLY, but not exclusively, due to perceptions of winds of central bank change.  BUT even within a contrary, the fact that rallies in Spain, France, Greece, and Italy reflect more of central bank easing notions, the opposite of taper.  In essence, the complex has gone batty uber-appreciation this year.  Sure, many eyeball the Launchpad physical metals marginal stabilization no longer falling on a knife but the miner bonds and the mining stocks are string like bull with significant appreciation.  This decidedly isn’t the stuff of taper which had the bond daddy’s romancing notions of 3% 10yr breaks, 40 basis point Green Eurodollar sell-offs,  emerging market rinse, and upticks in volatility amongst other things.

Equity bourses appear to be changing hands between investors with oscillating rotations which mark the first prospective 3 week consecutive sell-off in a while.  New year.  This is taper light.       Somewhere in between and further blurs the correlation metrics. 

So, which is it?  Are we tapering or not and why are merely a few global asset classed pointed out here, why are they deviating or arguably pricing in different central bank prospects or scenarios or outcomes? 

I’m not afraid but I am intrigued as to the fact that there may some strong opinions within markets and I perceive a widely received comfortability with taper or tightening notions, negative leanings on interest rate forecasts, a complacency of Fed call if you will.  And all of these hingings occur without intimate knowledge of the most critical variable of all, what Janet Yellen thinks? She has been awfully quiet as of late and there are many foregone conclusions or assumptions in market psyche without having heard a peep from the new MAESTRO.

Moreover, looking in the REAR view mirror within a week where multiple (two) Fed Governor proclamations, communicated and implicated notions which arguably would be considered radical in ANY other policy period of a hundred years.  How to conduct “monetary policy at a ZERO lower bound (Williams) ” and “doing something as surprising and drastic as cutting interest on excess reserves BELOW zero (Kocherlakota).”

This doesn’t sound like no stinking taper?  A tale of two markets.  To be or not to be.  To taper or not to taper.  Two roads diverged and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.  Robert Frost.

Which is it? Different markets pricing different things.  Right or wrong, the market always has a message; listen critically.    

Russ                 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fJftz7 Tyler Durden

From Russ Certo, head of rates at Brean Capital

Two Roads Diverged

As we know, it has been a suspect week with a variety of earnings misses.  Although I have been constructive on risk asset markets generally, equities anecdotally, as figured year end push for alpha desires could let it run into year end.  New year and ball game can change quickly.  Just wondering if a larger rotation is in order.                        

There is an overall considerable theme of what you may find when a liquidity tide recedes as most major crises or risk pullbacks have been precipitated by either combination of tighter monetary or fiscal policy.  Some with a considerable lag like a year after Greenspan departed from Fed helm, or many other examples.  I’m not suggesting NOW is a time for a compression in risk but am aware of the possibility, especially when Fed Chairs take victory laps, Bernanke this week.  Symbolic if nothing more.       Cover of TIME magazine?

I happen to think that 2014 is a VERY different year than 2013 from a variety of viewpoints.  First, there appears to be a dispersion of opinion about markets, valuations, policy frameworks and more.  This is a healthy departure from YEARS of artificiality.  Artificiality in valuations, artificiality in market and policy mechanics and essentially artificiality in EVERY financial, and real, relationship on the planet based on central bank(s) balance sheet expansion and other measures intended to be a stop-gap resolution to  tightening financial conditions, adverse expectations of economic activity, and the great rollover….of both financial and non-financial debt financing.       Boy, what a week in the IG issuance space with over $100 billion month to date, maybe $35 billion on the week.        Debt rollover on steroids.        

Beneath the veneer of market aesthetics, I already see fundamental (and technical) relevance.  This could be construed as an optimist pursuit or reality that markets are incrementally transcending reliance and/or dependence on the wings of central bank policy prerogatives.  The market bird is trying to fly on its own with inklings of a return to FUNDAMENTAL analysis.  A good thing, conceptually, and gradualist development of passing the valuation baton back to market runners.  A likely major pillar objective of policy despite more than a few critics worried about seemingly dormant lurking imbalances created by immeasurable policy and monetary and fundamentally skewed risk asset relationships globally. 

This exercise of summarization of ebb and flow and comings and goings of markets and policy naturally funnels a discussion to what stature of central bank policy currently or accurately exists?  Current events.  What is the accurate stage of policy?

I actually think this is a more delicate nuance than I perceive viewed in overall market sentiment. Granted, we have taken a major step for mankind, which is the topical engagement of some level of scope or reduction of liquidity provisioning,” not tightening.”  Tip of the iceberg communique with markets to INTRODUCE the concept of stepping off the gas but not hitting the break.  Reeks of fragility to me but narrative headed in right direction to stop medicating the patient, the global economy.

Some markets have logically responded in kind.  The highest beta markets as either beneficiaries or vulnerable to monetary policy changes, the emerging markets, have reflected at least the optics of change with policy.  More auditory than optics in hearing a PROSPECTIVE change in garbled Fedspeak.  The high flyer currencies which capture the nominal flighty hot money flows globally affirmed the Fed message. 

In literally the simplest of terms, the G7 industrialized, not peripheral; interest rate complex has simply moved the needle in form of +110 basis point higher moves in nominal sovereign interest rates.  And there are a bevy of other expressions which played nicely and rightly conformed to the messages coming out of the central bank sandbox.  But there are ALSO notable dichotomies, which send a different or even the opposite message.

I perceive a deviation in perception of message as some markets or market participants appear to be betting on taper or a return to normalcy in global growth or U.S. growth outcomes???  OR no taper, or conversely QE4 or whatever.  Sovereign spreads have moved materially tighter vs. industrial and supposed risk free rates (Tsys, Gilts, Bunds) both last year and in the first three weeks of 2014. Something a new leg of QE would represent, not a taper.   A different year!!!

There have been VERY reliable risk asset market beta correlations over the last 5 years and sovereign or peripheral spreads have been AS volatile and correlated as any asset class.  These things trade like dancing with a rattle-snake.  Greece, Spain, France etc.  They can bite you with fangs.  They have been meaningfully more correlated to high yield spreads and yields and to central bank balance sheet expansion as nearly any asset class.  So, the infusion of central bank liquidity into markets has seen “relief” rallies in peripherals and one would think the converse would be true as well.  The valuations have represented the flavor and direction of risk on/risk off or liquidity on/liquidity off reliably for many months/years.

But I THOUGHT markets were deliberating tapering views and expressions as validated by some good soldier markets BUT that is not necessarily what the rally in riskiest of sovereign “credits” is suggesting.  The complex seems to be decoupling with Fed balance sheet correlation and message.  Some are OVER 100 standard deviations from the mean!  They are rich and could/should be sold.     Especially if one was to follow the obvious correlation with the direction of central bank as stated.

But look to other arena’s like TIPS breakevens which also have been correlated with liquidity and risk on/off and central bank balance sheet expansion.  Correlated to NASDAQ, HY, peripherals and the like.   BUT this complex COUNTERS what peripherals are doing.  They haven’t shown up to the punch bowl party yet.  Not invited.      This is a departure of markets that have largely and generally been in synch from a liquidity and performance correlation view.

Like gold and silver which got tattooed vis a vis down 35%+ performance last year MOSTLY, but not exclusively, due to perceptions of winds of central bank change.  BUT even within a contrary, the fact that rallies in Spain, France, Greece, and Italy reflect more of central bank easing notions, the opposite of taper.  In essence, the complex has gone batty uber-appreciation this year.  Sure, many eyeball the Launchpad physical metals marginal stabilization no longer falling on a knife but the miner bonds and the mining stocks are string like bull with significant appreciation.  This decidedly isn’t the stuff of taper which had the bond daddy’s romancing notions of 3% 10yr breaks, 40 basis point Green Eurodollar sell-offs,  emerging market rinse, and upticks in volatility amongst other things.

Equity bourses appear to be changing hands between investors with oscillating rotations which mark the first prospective 3 week consecutive sell-off in a while.  New year.  This is taper light.       Somewhere in between and
further blurs the correlation metrics. 

So, which is it?  Are we tapering or not and why are merely a few global asset classed pointed out here, why are they deviating or arguably pricing in different central bank prospects or scenarios or outcomes? 

I’m not afraid but I am intrigued as to the fact that there may some strong opinions within markets and I perceive a widely received comfortability with taper or tightening notions, negative leanings on interest rate forecasts, a complacency of Fed call if you will.  And all of these hingings occur without intimate knowledge of the most critical variable of all, what Janet Yellen thinks? She has been awfully quiet as of late and there are many foregone conclusions or assumptions in market psyche without having heard a peep from the new MAESTRO.

Moreover, looking in the REAR view mirror within a week where multiple (two) Fed Governor proclamations, communicated and implicated notions which arguably would be considered radical in ANY other policy period of a hundred years.  How to conduct “monetary policy at a ZERO lower bound (Williams) ” and “doing something as surprising and drastic as cutting interest on excess reserves BELOW zero (Kocherlakota).”

This doesn’t sound like no stinking taper?  A tale of two markets.  To be or not to be.  To taper or not to taper.  Two roads diverged and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.  Robert Frost.

Which is it? Different markets pricing different things.  Right or wrong, the market always has a message; listen critically.    

Russ                 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fJftz7 Tyler Durden

The US dollar finished last week well bid. It is at six week highs against the euro. It recovered from the brief dip at the start of the week below JPY103 and finished the week above JPY104.00. The Australian dollar fell to new multi-year lows, as did the Canadian dollar. Most emerging market currencies also fell. 

 

The notable exception to this general pattern was sterling. Strong retail sales helped ease some anxiety that had been creeping in about sustainability of the UK’s expansion.

 

It was the apparent resiliency of the UK and US economies that was the main fundamental development in recent days. The poor US jobs data had sparked some speculation that the economy was sufficiently fragile that the Federal Reserve would have to re-think its tapering tactics that it just had unveiled last month. The combination of the healthy gain in a key component of retail sales (excluding autos, gasoline and building materials), stronger than expected regional Fed surveys (Empire and Philly) and a Beige Book that seemed to slightly upgrade the economic assessment, pointed in the direction of continued exit from QE. A number of Fed officials, not of all who are voting members on the FOMC, encouraged this conclusion by investors.

 

Before the weekend, the euro slumped to almost $1.3500. It finished the North American session below its 100-day moving average (~$1.3665) for the first time since September. A break of this area could open trigger a new wave of long liquidation that could carry the single currency toward $1.3450. The euro’s technical condition has deteriorated and the five days average is trending below that 20-day average.

 

As poor as the euro’s technical readings are, sterling’s are positive. The RSI an MACD are turning higher. Sterling stalled in front of the $1.6460 area, which corresponds to a 50% retracement of the losses seen since the multi-year high above $1.6600 was seen briefly on the first trading session of the year. A move above $1.6500-20 is needed to signal the resumption of the uptrend. Support has been established in front of $1.6300.

 

The greenback also finished last week above its 100-day moving average against the Swiss franc (~CHF0.9075), an area it has been flirting with, but for which it was unable to sustain a convincing break. The CHF0.9130 area offers immediate resistance.

 

The dollar finished the week little changed against the yen, but this overlooks the ride it took. It first fell to JPY102.85 in follow through selling after the US employment report, but proceeded to recover back to almost JPY105 as the dollar buying strategy on pullbacks continues to be seen. The RSI and MACDs are still pointing lower, but rather than signal a new leg down in the dollar, we suspect a consolidation phase is more likely.

 

The technical condition of the dollar-bloc currencies is poor and the Canadian dollar is challenging the Australian dollar for leadership of decline. Economic data from both countries have encouraged rate cut speculation. The Bank of Canada meets next week. A rate cut is highly unlikely, though dovish comments by the central bank are likely. This could trigger a bout of short-covering, perhaps on a sell-the-rumor-and-buy-the-fact type of activity. Key support for the US dollar is seen in the CAD1.0880-CAD1.0900 area.

 

Australia reports Q4 CPI figures and a subdued report could fan rate cut expectations. The Australian dollar traced out a big outside down week and many market participants are looking for $0.8500 in the coming weeks. Ironically, the New Zealand dollar was dragged lower, even though the market sees a growing risk of a rate hike at the end of the month. The $0.8500 area now marks important resistance and the Kiwi can make its way toward $0.8100.

 

The US dollar trended higher against the Mexican peso last week and reached its best level since September.  It has approached the upper end of the Q4 ’13 trading range.  Although the technical indicators are not generating strong signals, we suspect the market has moved too far too fast.  The dollar closed marginally above its Bollinger Band (+/- 2 standard deviations around the 20-day moving average).   Support is seen near MXN13.15.  The  top of the range appears to be around MXN13.3450.  

 

Outside of the currencies we usually review here, we observe among the clearest technical signal may be that the euro is poised to weaken against the Swedish krona. It has traced out a large head and shoulders pattern and finished last week below the neckline. The left shoulder was carved in mid-November near SEK9.00. The head was put in place in mid-December near SEK9.10. The right shoulder was formed in the first half of this month. The neckline can be found around SEK8.82. If this is indeed a valid pattern, the measuring objective is near last summer lows around SEK8.55.

 

Observations from the speculative positioning in the CME currency futures:

 

1. The net speculative position switched from long to short Swiss francs.  It is the first net short position in 5 months. It was more the result of longs being cut (6.2k contracts) than shorts being added (+1.5k contracts).

 

2.  The net speculative Canadian dollar position stands at a new record short of 67.3k contracts.  Gross shorts rose 10.5k contracts to 101.6k.  As noted above,  we suspect the Canadian dollar is vulnerable to a short squeeze after the central bank meeting on January 22.  

 

3.  In three of the seven currency futures we review here, there was a reduction of both gross shorts and longs (yen, Australian dollar and Mexican peso).  In the previous reporting period, there were four currencies were subject to such position adjustments  (yen, sterling, Swiss franc and Australian dollar).  

 

4.  There net long euro position fell for the third consecutive week.  The net short yen position was reduced for a third week as well. 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mdjutn Marc To Market

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jchW5A williambanzai7

History is often written to benefit certain groups over others.

 

Indeed, you will often find the blame for some of the worst events in history placed on the wrong individuals or factors. Most Americans today continue to argue over liberal vs. conservative beliefs, unaware that the vast majority of economy ills plaguing the country originate in neither party but in the Federal Reserve, which has debased the US Dollar by over 95% in the 20^th century alone.

 

With that in mind, I want to consider what actually caused the hyperinflationary period in Weimar Germany. Please consider the quote from Niall Ferguson’s book, “The Ascent of Money” regarding what really happened there:

 

Yet it would be wrong to see the hyperinflation of 1923 as a simple consequence of the Versailles Treaty. That was how the Germans liked to see it, of course…All of this was to overlook the domestic political roots of the monetary crisis. The Weimar tax system was feeble, not least because the new regime lacked legitimacy among higher income groups who declined to pay the taxes imposed on them.

 

At the same time, public money was spent recklessly, particularly on generous wage settlements for public sector unions. The combination of insufficient taxation and excessive spending created enormous deficits in 1919 and 1920 (in excess of 10 per cent of net national product), before the victors had even presented their reparations bill… Moreover, those in charge of Weimar economic policy in the early 1920s felt they had little incentive to stabilize German fiscal and monetary policy, even when an opportunity presented itself in the middle of 1920.

 

A common calculation among Germany’s financial elites was that runaway currency depreciation would force the Allied powers into revision the reparations settlement, since the effect would be to cheapen German exports.

 

What the Germans overlooked was that the inflation induced boom of 1920-22, at a time when the US and UK economies were in the depths of a post-war recession, caused an even bigger surge in imports, thus negating the economic pressure they had hoped to exert. At the heart of the German hyperinflation was a miscalculation.

 

You’ll note the frightening similarities to the US’s monetary policy today. We see:

 

1)   Reckless spending of public money, particularly in the form of entitlement spending

2)   Excessive spending resulting in massive deficits.

3)   Little incentive for political leaders to rein in said spending.

4)   Intentional currency depreciation in order to make debt payments more feasible.

 

This sounds like a blueprint for was US leaders (indeed most Western leaders) have engaged in post-2007. The multi-trillion Dollar question is if we’ve already crossed the line in terms of setting the stage for massive inflation down the road.

We believe that it is quite possible… for the following reasons.

 

·      The US now sports a Debt to GDP ratio of over 100%.

·      Every 1% rise in interest rates will result in over $100 billion more in interest payments on US debt.

·      Indications of inflation (stealth price hikes, wage protests, etc.) are showing up throughout the economy.

·      Indications that other countries are moving to abandon the US Dollar are present.

 

In a nutshell we are in a very dangerous position. This doesn’t mean hyperinflation HAS to occur. Indeed, history often times rhymes rather than repeats. However, the fact of the matter is that the same policies which create Weimar Germany are occurring in the US today. How they play out remains to be seen, but it is unlikely it will end well.

 

For a FREE Special Report outlining how to set up your portfolio from this, swing by: http://ift.tt/170oFLH

 

Best Regards

Phoenix Capital Research 

 

 

  

 

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1kI8d8W Phoenix Capital Research