Guest Post: The ‘No Exit’ Meme Goes Mainstream

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,

A Change in Tune

It is interesting to watch how mainstream reporting on certain major topics at times undergoes chameleon-like changes with the meme originally presented suddenly turning into the exact opposite. Not too long ago conviction was extremely high that the Fed would slow down its 'QE' operations and that the economy's weak recovery was going to morph into something one might call 'business as usual'. That notion has never struck us as credible.

Readers who follow Zerohedge may have noticed two recent articles discussing the change in mainstream bank analyst views on the dreaded 'QE taper'. It is instructive to review them: Deutsche Bank now argues that there 'won't be any tapering at all', while SocGen as gone a step further and is now saying 'QE may be increased'.

In other words, mainstream analysts have finally realized that the  insane are running the asylum. Regarding the changing tune in the popular mainstream press, we have come across this recent article at Bloomberg, entitled “Central Banks Drop Tightening Talk as Easy Money Goes On”.

 

“The era of easy money is shaping up to keep going into 2014. The Bank of Canada’s dropping of language about the need for future interest-rate increases and today’s decisions by central banks in Norway and Sweden to leave their rates on hold unite them with counterparts in reinforcing rather than retracting loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve delayed a pullback in asset purchases, while emerging markets from Hungary to Chile cut borrowing costs in the past two months.

 

“We are at the cusp of another round of global monetary easing,” said Joachim Fels, co-chief global economist at Morgan Stanley in London.

 

Policy makers are reacting to another cooling of global growth, led this time by weakening in developing nations while inflation and job growth remain stagnant in much of the industrial world. The risk is that continued stimulus will inflate asset bubbles central bankers will have to deal with later. Already, talk of unsustainable home-price increases is spreading from Germany to New Zealand, while the MSCI World Index of developed-world stock markets is near its highest level since 2007.

 

“We are undoubtedly seeing these central bankers go wild,” said Richard Gilhooly, an interest-rate strategist at TD Securities Inc. in New York. They “are just pumping liquidity hand over fist and promising to keep rates down. It’s not normal.”

 

(emphasis added)

So, have central bankers drunk the Kool-Aid with the acid in it? What we see here is global acceptance of the Bernankean theory – largely derived from Milton Friedman's analysis of the depression era and Bernanke's own analysis of Japan's post bubble era – that even though new bubbles may be staring everyone into the face, central banks must 'not make the mistake to stop easing too early'. It is held that that would 'endanger the recovery', similar to  what happened in the US in 1937 and Japan in 1996.

We have previously discussed that the 'Ghost of 1937' is hanging over the proceedings and tried to explain why this reasoning is absurd. While it is true that the liquidation of malinvested capital would resume if the monetary heroin doses were to be reduced, the only alternative is to try to engender an 'eternal boom' by printing ever more money. This can only lead to an even worse ultimate outcome, in the very worst case a crack-up boom that destroys the entire monetary system.

 

Why It Is Not 'Business as Usual'

One of the reasons why we remain convinced that the widely hoped for return to a 'normal expansion' isn't likely to occur is that we have some evidence – tentative though it may be – that the economy's production structure has been severely distorted again by the Fed's interest rate manipulations and the huge growth in the money supply it had to engender in order to keep interest rates below the natural level dictated by time preferences.

As one of our readers frequently points out in the comments section, the policy is mainly a stealth bank bailout, as money is transferred from savers to banks in order to avert the liquidation of unsound credit. How much unsound credit is still clogging up the system after the 2008 crisis? We unfortunately don't know, as bank balance sheets have become even darker black boxes than they already were after 'mark to market' accounting was suspended in April of 2009 (no doubt people who have the time to study the hundreds of pages of bank earnings reports with their endless footnotes in detail could come up with estimates, but apparently no-one really takes the time to do that).

Below is a chart that we use to gauge how factors of production are distributed in the economy. Note that this cannot be more than a rough guide, but it is a guide that has served us well in identifying unsustainable credit-ind
uced bubbles in the past.

What the chart shows is the ratio of capital goods (business equipment) to consumer goods production. When the ratio rises, it means that factors of production are increasingly moving from lower order stages of the capital structure to higher order ones – which is a phenomenon typically associated with credit-induced booms.

Of course this chart cannot tell us how much of the capital drawn toward higher order stages will turn out to be malinvested. However, what it does tell us is that the economy's production structure is in danger of tying up more consumer goods than it produces. In other words, it is an economy that may temporarily already be operating outside of what Roger Garrison calls the 'production possibilities frontier'.

By definition, this state of affairs is unsustainable. Eventually the process will  reverse, namely once market interest rates stop 'obeying' the central bank's diktat and relative prices in the economy begin to revert to something a bit closer to their previous configuration. The revolutionized price structure can of course never return precisely to its initial, pre-boom state. However, if market interest rates were to start increasing, the prices of capital goods would certainly begin to decline relative to the prices of consumer goods. The prices of titles to capital, i.e. stocks, would then begin to fall as well, as would the ratio shown below.

 


 

Production - capital vs. cons goods

The production of capital versus consumer goods in the US economy – once again reflecting credit bubble distortions – click to enlarge.

 


 

For readers not familiar with the long term chart, we show it below. What is interesting about this chart is that prior to the Nixon gold default and the adoption of a pure fiat money, the ratio traveled in a fairly narrow sideways channel. It only began to embark on a strong secular rise once the greatest credit bubble in history took off:

 


 

Production - capital vs. cons goods-LT

The production of capital versus consumer goods, long term. Prior to the massive credit bubble that started after the last tie of the dollar to gold was abandoned, the ratio traveled in a tight sideways channel between 0.3 and 0.4 – click to enlarge.

 


 

To be sure, not all of this structural change in the economy's capital structure can be blamed on the credit bubble. Partly it is probably also a result of the vast increase in global trade, which enabled a different and more efficient distribution of production to be put into place (labor-intensive consumer goods such as apparel are for instance nowadays mainly produced in China and other Asian nations). To the extent that the shift is due to the law of association it is beneficial and nothing to worry about.

Nevertheless, it can be clearly seen on the chart that even if we allow for a structural shift that is to some degree the result of benign developments, periods in which the credit bubble expands more strongly are accompanied by strong increases in the ratio, while busts result in 'mean reversion' moves.

The reason why these mean reversion moves don't play out more forcefully is that the central bank always does its utmost to arrest and reverse the liquidation of malinvested capital and unsound credit.

 

Conclusion:

Once the economy's capital structure is distorted beyond a certain threshold, it won't matter anymore how much more monetary pumping the central bank engages in – instead of creating a temporary illusion of prosperity, the negative effects of the policy will begin to predominate almost immediately.

Given that we have evidence that the distortion is already at quite a 'ripe' stage, it should be expected that the economy will perform far worse in the near to medium term than was hitherto widely believed. This also means that monetary pumping will likely continue at full blast, as central bankers continue to erroneously assume that the policy is 'helping' the economy to recover.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/s81J7pAVHsA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

LBO Multiples: The Latest Credit Bubble 2.0 Record

This week marked what we suspect will become an important inflection point when the world looks back at this debacle of a bubble. The Fed, having already warned in January of 'froth' in credit markets (and ths the fuel for 'hope' in stocks) proposed tougher underwriting standards for leveraged loans. Credit markets have underperformed since; but as Diapason Commodities' Sean Corrigan notes, the baleful impact of the central banks is still everywhere to be seen in the credit markets. From junk issuance to the rapid regrowth of the CDO business to the 'record' high multiples now being exchanged for LBOs; Central Banker's monomaniacal fixation on zero interest rates and artificial bond pricing is setting us up for the next, great disaster of misallocated capital and malinvested resources.

 

Any 'popping' of the credit bubble will be massively destructive to stocks – as we warned here, this is Carl iCahn's worst nightmare…

…But we have seen this "credit cycle end, equities ramp" before – in 2007 – where leverage (both firm-wise (debt/EBITDA) and instrument-wise (CDOs)) provided the extra oomph to send stocks higher on the back of credit fueled extrapolation of earnings trends.

(charts: Barclays)

In the end we know this is unsustainable – the question is when (in 2007 it last 10 months or so…).

We already see 30Y Apple bonds trading at 5% yields – admittedly low still but notably higher than when they issued previously. The Verizon deal recently now trades at around 5.7% yield and is considerably worse financially pro forma. Of course, just as in 2007, things change very quickly once collateral chains start to shrink.

Perhaps this is why Carl iCahn said the Apple CFO/CEO shunned him – iCahn's worst nightmare is simply the inability to proxy-LBO each and every firm…

Given these charts – which market do you think is in a bubble – equity or credit? Bear in mind that the Fed's Jeremy Stein has already made his case that the latter is a bubble for sure… and the fragility that reaching for yield creates…

 

But the signs of an even bigger bubble are clear…

Via Sean Corrigan of Diapason Commodities:

The Taper fiasco may have delivered a temporary fright, but this has not yet been sufficient to bring about a more lasting reappraisal. With junk yields having retraced half their 180bps spike ? and so reaching territory only ever undercut at the very height of the wild enthusiasm of the first half of this year—and with the CDX index pretty much back to its post?Crisis best, it can only be a matter of time before issuance volumes swell once more.

Even with the last few months’ abatement, this has hardly been a market in dearth, as you can see from a sampling of the comments made by Thomson Reuters in its review of the third quarter:?

The volume of global high yield corporate debt reached US$350.2 billion during the first nine months of 2013, a 27% increase compared to the first nine months of 2012 and the strongest first three quarters for high yield debt activity since records began in 1980… Issuance from European issuers more than doubled compared to the same time last year.

 

Nor was the gold rush restricted to bonds, per se:?

Overall Syndicated lending in the Americas… increased 34.9% from the same period in 2012, with proceeds reaching US$1.8 trillion… Leveraged lending in the United States increased markedly from the first nine months of 2012, totalling US$894.8 billion… representing an 81.5% increase in proceeds.

And, to add to the thrills—They?y?y’r?r?e Back! Yes, CDOs and CLOs are enjoying a renewed vogue just five short years after they played a key role in blowing up the world’s financial system:?

Global asset?backed securities totalled US$251.3 billion during the first nine months of 2013, a 7% increase compared to the same time last year and the best annual start for global ABS since 2007. Collateralized debt and loan obligations totalled US$62.3 billion during the first nine months, more than double issuance during the first nine months of 2012. CDO and CLO volume accounted for one quarter of ABS [volume].

 

As the good folks at PitchBook also pointed out, this was no time to be sitting on the sidelines in the LBO world, either:?

Corporations’ appetite to utilize cheap debt manifested itself in an average leverage ratio of 61.8%… a postfinancial?crisis high (2007 was 67.6%). Another important development has been the rapid increase in valuation?to?EBITDA multiples for buyout deals, which hit a decade high of 10.7x in 2013.

 

In a summation which perfectly encapsulates how the CBs’ monomaniacal fixation on zero interest rates and artificial bond pricing is setting us up for the next, great disaster of misallocated capital and malinvested resources, one Margaret Shanley, a principal at Cohn?Reznick, opined that:?

“…it is no surprise that valuations have remained at robust levels this year, several factors are at play supporting the increase—high demand and low supply for quality deals and easy access to debt with historically low pricing…”

? the first two features being a direct consequence of a set of policies expressly fashioned to bring about the last one cited, one hastens to add.

 

 


    



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

Brazil's Flaws Are Clear…

While Eike Batista’s collapse from grace may be the poster child for the country, this deep dive into the Latin American economy concludes Brazil’s flaws are clear. Commodity prices have been volatile; global growth has been weak and inconsistent. Brazil can no longer depend on these factors for growth. A closer look reveals that internal conditions are progressively becoming Brazil’s main economic foe. Ironically this is good news as the country is increasingly in a position to take control of its destiny. What is needed is decisive leadership and effective solutions to the long-term problems plaguing the country. Short-term stimulus measures and even supply-side measures such as reduced taxes have clearly not stimulated the economy. Brazil must invest in its own future.

Via Rodrigo Serrano of RCS Investments,

Brazil’s emergence as a significant economic force over the past decade generated noteworthy investor enthusiasm. From 2003 to 2008, an amalgamation of principal factors such as: macroeconomic stability stemming from prior reforms in the country, a recovering U.S. economy from its 2001 recession, historically low global interest rates, appreciating commodity prices, and rising demand from China set the stage for a sustained period of solid economic growth in Brazil.

While most of the aforementioned tailwinds provided a sound incubator for solid economic growth across all BRIC nations during the same period; Russia, India, and China averaged 7.1%, 8.0%, and 11.3% respectably; it was Brazil that more than doubled its rate of growth from 2.0% during 1997-2002 to 4.2% from 2003-2008 according to the World Bank. This improvement was the best among the BRIC nations.

As the 2008 financial crisis approached, many prominent investors and academics, fond of the bullish long-term prospects of the BRIC nations, entertained the decoupling thesis. From the Economist: “Yet recent data suggest decoupling is no myth. Indeed, it may yet save the world economy. Decoupling does not mean that an American recession will have no impact on developing countries… The point is that their GDP-growth rates will slow by much less than in previous American downturns” (Economist: The decoupling debate).

While the American downturn and subsequent financial crisis did precipitate a global recession largely debunking the idea that BRIC nations could step in and save the world economy, investor interest in Brazil only intensified when the event seemed like it would be little more than a slight bump in the road in terms of economic growth. Brazil’s economy registered a scant contraction of 0.3% in 2009, which was then followed the following year by the strongest pace of annual growth in 25 years at 7.5%. Furthermore, Brazil’s Bovespa index rocketed higher from the nadir of its stock market crash in late 2008 by roughly 129% by the end of 2009, the second best performance among BRIC nations over that period after Russia’s MICEX index.

Despite these impressive performance statistics, since peaking in 2010, economic growth has been widely lackluster, souring investor sentiment and bringing into the spotlight the panoply of structural problems facing Latin America’s largest economy. This extensive report covers a brief economic history of Brazil, a focus on the country’s current economic impediments, and steps for positive future development.

Full report below:

RCS Investments: Brazil Special Report


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/49FLAgo93s8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Brazil’s Flaws Are Clear…

While Eike Batista’s collapse from grace may be the poster child for the country, this deep dive into the Latin American economy concludes Brazil’s flaws are clear. Commodity prices have been volatile; global growth has been weak and inconsistent. Brazil can no longer depend on these factors for growth. A closer look reveals that internal conditions are progressively becoming Brazil’s main economic foe. Ironically this is good news as the country is increasingly in a position to take control of its destiny. What is needed is decisive leadership and effective solutions to the long-term problems plaguing the country. Short-term stimulus measures and even supply-side measures such as reduced taxes have clearly not stimulated the economy. Brazil must invest in its own future.

Via Rodrigo Serrano of RCS Investments,

Brazil’s emergence as a significant economic force over the past decade generated noteworthy investor enthusiasm. From 2003 to 2008, an amalgamation of principal factors such as: macroeconomic stability stemming from prior reforms in the country, a recovering U.S. economy from its 2001 recession, historically low global interest rates, appreciating commodity prices, and rising demand from China set the stage for a sustained period of solid economic growth in Brazil.

While most of the aforementioned tailwinds provided a sound incubator for solid economic growth across all BRIC nations during the same period; Russia, India, and China averaged 7.1%, 8.0%, and 11.3% respectably; it was Brazil that more than doubled its rate of growth from 2.0% during 1997-2002 to 4.2% from 2003-2008 according to the World Bank. This improvement was the best among the BRIC nations.

As the 2008 financial crisis approached, many prominent investors and academics, fond of the bullish long-term prospects of the BRIC nations, entertained the decoupling thesis. From the Economist: “Yet recent data suggest decoupling is no myth. Indeed, it may yet save the world economy. Decoupling does not mean that an American recession will have no impact on developing countries… The point is that their GDP-growth rates will slow by much less than in previous American downturns” (Economist: The decoupling debate).

While the American downturn and subsequent financial crisis did precipitate a global recession largely debunking the idea that BRIC nations could step in and save the world economy, investor interest in Brazil only intensified when the event seemed like it would be little more than a slight bump in the road in terms of economic growth. Brazil’s economy registered a scant contraction of 0.3% in 2009, which was then followed the following year by the strongest pace of annual growth in 25 years at 7.5%. Furthermore, Brazil’s Bovespa index rocketed higher from the nadir of its stock market crash in late 2008 by roughly 129% by the end of 2009, the second best performance among BRIC nations over that period after Russia’s MICEX index.

Despite these impressive performance statistics, since peaking in 2010, economic growth has been widely lackluster, souring investor sentiment and bringing into the spotlight the panoply of structural problems facing Latin America’s largest economy. This extensive report covers a brief economic history of Brazil, a focus on the country’s current economic impediments, and steps for positive future development.

Full report below:

RCS Investments: Brazil Special Report


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/49FLAgo93s8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

4 Out Of 5 Valuation Methodologies Agree: The "Market" Is Overvalued

Ignoring the ongoing onslaught of one-off items that plague earnings reports and make apples to apples comparisons practically impossible, the fact of the matter as the following chart from Goldman so decisively points out, despite the ever-present hope that it's different this time, recurring margins (long-believed to be the great white hope that earnings multiples will grow into), have collapsed to their lowest in 3 years. Combine that with slumping sales, record high leverage (providing little room for moar financial engineering), record high margin debt (no room for error), and a growing sentiment shift to 'knowing' that it's all artificial and BTFATH seems like a stretch to us. It would appear Goldman agrees as 4 out of the 5 valuation approaches they use signal stocks are expensive.

Adjusted for one-off 'tricks' recurring margins for the S&P 500 are at 3-year lows…

But, the fact is that all of the gains of the index this year have come from multiple expansion hope…

as investors have piled in with record amounts of margined leverage…

As top-line sales growth has slumped…

leaving stocks expensive on all but "The Fed Model" basis…

Which Greenspan cited this week: The stock market “has gone up a huge amount, but it’s not bubbly in any sense that I see…"

Even with Cyclically-Adjusted P/E signalling major overvaluation…

But with financial engineering likley to hit a wall (of credit growth slowing – thanks to the Fed) as leverage hits a record high…

Investors who are BTFATH must ask themselves just who is the greater fool they will sell to…


    



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

4 Out Of 5 Valuation Methodologies Agree: The “Market” Is Overvalued

Ignoring the ongoing onslaught of one-off items that plague earnings reports and make apples to apples comparisons practically impossible, the fact of the matter as the following chart from Goldman so decisively points out, despite the ever-present hope that it's different this time, recurring margins (long-believed to be the great white hope that earnings multiples will grow into), have collapsed to their lowest in 3 years. Combine that with slumping sales, record high leverage (providing little room for moar financial engineering), record high margin debt (no room for error), and a growing sentiment shift to 'knowing' that it's all artificial and BTFATH seems like a stretch to us. It would appear Goldman agrees as 4 out of the 5 valuation approaches they use signal stocks are expensive.

Adjusted for one-off 'tricks' recurring margins for the S&P 500 are at 3-year lows…

But, the fact is that all of the gains of the index this year have come from multiple expansion hope…

as investors have piled in with record amounts of margined leverage…

As top-line sales growth has slumped…

leaving stocks expensive on all but "The Fed Model" basis…

Which Greenspan cited this week: The stock market “has gone up a huge amount, but it’s not bubbly in any sense that I see…"

Even with Cyclically-Adjusted P/E signalling major overvaluation…

But with financial engineering likley to hit a wall (of credit growth slowing – thanks to the Fed) as leverage hits a record high…

Investors who are BTFATH must ask themselves just who is the greater fool they will sell to…


    



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

Future Tense

Years ago, before everyone had in-car navigation systems, I held on to an amusing little thought about traveling on the freeways: when you witnessed a huge backup on the other side (that is, traveling the other direction), and it went on for mile after mile, and then it finally cleared, you were put in the unusual position of actually knowing the short-term future of all the poor souls who, farther up the road, were zipping along, blissfully unaware of the hellacious backup that would soon face them. I would glance at the dozens of drivers enjoying their 70 MPH care-free spin, knowing that their lives were about to get worse really soon. As tragedies go, it doesn’t exactly rank, but it was still an amusing realization of the power of fortune-telling.

I am going through precisely that same experience now, except it’s with myself. For a variety of reasons, I am going through all the posts I’ve ever written for Slope. I am presently up to May 2008, and that is a particularly fascinating point in time, because the market had experienced a rather hearty slump (which I enjoyed immensely) and then began an unrelenting and inexplicable recovery higher, which I’ve tinted in green.

1026-SPX

So my “driving on the highway” experience in this case is that I am both the observer (that is, Tim Knight doing this in late October 2013) and the observed (the Tim from over five years ago, expressing his increasingly-frustrated thoughts about the market’s climb, after having tumbled over 300 S&P points earlier). I sound like a kid whose favorite toy had been snatched away……..probably because that’s exactly what it felt like.

On my post from May 13, I wrote, “I have no index exposure at this time. I simply find the potential for a breakout too disturbing, and the reluctance of the market to fall, no matter what the news.” (Please note that these old posts lack graphic images, because they didn’t survive the move from Typepad to WordPress).

A couple of days later, I had become so disgusted with the market that I decided to only write one post on my blog per day which, for a blogoholic like myself, is pretty extreme: “Until the markets get enjoyable (e.g. bearish) again, I’ll be returning to my “one post a day” format after the close. A lot of folks have become accustomed to my frequent intraday posts, and I’ll do that again if sanity returns, but until then, it’s back to the old routine.”

On May 15, I was really approaching the breaking point: “It’s hard to remember a time that I felt so disenchanted with the market. I enjoy charting, and I enjoy trading, but when the world seems turned upside down like it is, the whole affair loses its charm………..You can tell from my tone I’m feeling pretty miserable about the market. I can deal with markets, be they up or down, as long as they make some kind of sense to me. This one doesn’t. So it’s discouraging for someone who wants to analyze price action to be faced with what appear to me to be baffling contradictions. So I’m sorry I don’t have anything more inspiring to say.”

And the next day, I openly mused about whether one should just throw their hands up and buy, just like everyone else was doing: “Does one simply dive into these stocks? Some do. And they have, by and large, profited handsomely from doing so. The difficulty is figuring out when the music is going to stop playing. Was today the top for these stocks? Or is the top several years and many hundreds of percent away?”

On the exact day of the recovery top, I had become so morose that readers started sending me emails to try to buck up my spirits: “I’ve been deluged with emails from folks telling me that the top is in and everything is going to start plunging again. While I genuinely appreciate the heartfelt sentiments – – – I know they are from true believers, and I know they are offered to make me feel better – – the grotesque fact of the matter is that the U.S. Government, whose principal drivers are colluding directly with their Wall Street buddies, has mortgaged the future of the country in order to bail out the zillionaires in Manhattan. This sounds like aluminum-hat-wearing type drivel, and I’m sorry that it does, but I truly believe this to be the case. Were it not for all of Bernanke’s meddling, the meltdown would have continued in all its full glory. As it is now, the day of reckoning has been simply delayed.”

Well, the “day of reckoning” started happening at that very moment. But just like those folks driving on the road at the top of this post, there was just no way to tell at the time what was about to take place. (I’ve tinted the “when will this rally end?” whining period in the chart below).

1026-asshole

Of course, the “relentless” rise hasn’t been for two months this time…….it’s been for nearly five years. And I can tell you, reporting directly from the heart of the Silicon Valley, the zeitgeist around here is 1999 and 2007 compressed together and supercharged. I present you a snapshot I made of the magazine sitting at the grocery store a few days ago:

1026-boombaby

A baby. Wearing Google Glass. Good God. And in a fitting exhibition of the total lack of self-awareness, the words chosen are as close to “It’s Different This Time!” as they could muster (Specifically, “This time, the tech explosion doesn’t have to end in tears.“) People never learn. Ever. Even the really smart ones.

I’ll close with this blast from the past. I scanned for you a comic from late 1999 from This Modern World. The same people reveling in the present bubble (which dwarfs the Internet bubble) would still find this little snippet amusing, particularly since they would figure the world has become a lot wiser since then. (Click on it to give yourself a better chance of actually making out the words).

1026-tomorrow


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/48uQDrU9DgM/story01.htm Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

Last Hope For Holiday Shopping Frenzy: The Few Who Can Splurge

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

Consumer spending, the foundation of the US economy, has not exactly been growing at gangbuster rates. With one big exception: auto sales. Accounting for about 20% of total retail sales, they’ve been phenomenal, booking double-digit growth rates, and the industry has been wallowing in its own exuberance. But in September, there was a downdraft. The calendar got blamed. And in October, there was the 16-day government shutdown and the debt-ceiling debacle. It hit auto sales hard.

Some manufacturers started muttering unprintable things under their breath. Hyundai CEO John Krafcik worried out loud that the debacle could chop off 10% from October sales. A Kelly Blue Book survey painted an even grimmer picture: 18% of potential buyers said they’d outwait the conniptions in Washington before buying a car or truck. Now that the debt-ceiling can has been kicked down the road into next year, there are rumors that auto sales have picked up again. Halleluiah. Even if true, October’s quarter panel may have gotten dented.

Our favorite hope mongers got slammed on Friday by the Reuter’s/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index. It continued its ugly cascade into purgatory. At the end of August, it was 82.1; consumers were feeling OKish. Then it came unglued: 77.5 at the end of September, 75.2 in mid-October, and 73.2 today, the lowest reading since December 2012, when consumers had been contemplating the dreadful but now forgotten fiscal cliff.

Much of the dive is based on the economic outlook index, which plunged from 73.7 in August to 67.8 in September, to 63.9 in mid-October to 62.5 today. The “solution” in Washington has done nothing to assuage consumers. Plus, the dive had started before the Washington conniptions became acute and may be seated more deeply.

But industry soothsayers had been spewing retail optimism for weeks. Consumers intend to goose their spending by a breath-taking 11% to $646, found management consulting firm Accenture in its pre-holiday shopping intention survey conducted in September and released October 7. OK, so Accenture counts big retailers among its clients, and it might have had an agenda.

But even in its soothing ointment there was a fly: the disparity between the few who benefited from the Fed’s policies and the many who got clobbered by them. Of the respondents, 18% would spend less than last year, and 62% would spend the same. That’s 80%! The remaining 20% would increase their spending, by a lot! 16% by up to $499; and 4%, the real beneficiaries of the Fed’s policies, by over $500. The determination of shopping on Black Friday is the “highest in five years,” the report said. And gift cards, the greatest ripoff of all times, are still number one on consumers’ shopping lists.

Ah yes, the inexplicable American consumer, the strongest creature out there that no one has been able to subdue yet! According to Accenture, this will be a hopping holiday season for retailers.

So Deloitte, another mega consulting, tax, and audit firm, weighed in with the results of its survey, conducted in mid-September before the shutdown debacle, but released on October 21. According to it, these inexplicable American consumers would boost their holiday spending by 9.1%.  

They weren’t alone, way out there on that limb. On October 3, the National Retail Federation forecast that holiday sales would increase 3.9% to $602.1 billion, based on government and industry data. While that doesn’t look huge, given that we have about 2% inflation, it’s higher than the 10-year average growth of 3.3%.

“A realistic look at where we are right now in this economy,” is what NRF CEO Matthew Shay called it. A mix of “continued uncertainty in Washington and an economy that has been teetering on incremental growth for years,” he said. “Retailers are optimistic for the 2013 holiday season.” Even more optimistic was the NRF’s digital division, Shop.org, which forecast that online holiday sales would jump by 13% to 15%!

But on October 16, a shopping-season fiasco occurred at the NRF. Its holiday consumer spending survey found that the average shopper would spend $737.95, 2% less than last year, in contrast to the 3.9% increase it had forecast two weeks earlier. And to fit more gifts into their squeezed budgets, consumers would slash “self-gifting” by 8% to $129.62, the lowest in years.

“Americans are questioning the stability of our economy, our government, and their own finances,” a humbled Shay said this time. He expected consumers “to set a modest budget … as they wait and see what will become of the US economy in the coming months.”

In the same survey, 51% said that the overall state of the economy, and Washington’s meddling in it, would impact their spending plans “a little” or “a lot” during shopping season. And 79.5% said they’d cut corners, whittle down their shopping budgets, and spend less.

That was before the government’s presumed out-of-money date, October 17. With the doomsday can now safely kicked into early next year, shouldn’t everything be hunky-dory? Um, only a week later, on October 25, a new NRF poll found that the number of consumers who said their spending plans would be impacted by the economy jumped from 51% to 57%.

Alison Paul, head of Deloitte’s retail group in Chicago – remember Deloitte’s hype-infused survey above, predicting a veritable shopping frenzy with 9.1% growth? – retorted to Bloomberg and its incredulous readers that the shutdown might have impacted consumer sentiment, but not enough to throw off the economy during shopping season.

Then Gallup put the best spin on a crummy situation. Holiday spending intentions were up 2% to $786, the highest since 2007, it said on October 21, based on a poll conducted during the early stages of the shutdown. That 2% “growth” would be about the rate of inflation. So stagnation. This is how they twisted it, without a scintilla of evidence: “Now that the shutdown is over, consumers’ Christmas spending intentions could change, and perhaps” – emphasis mine – “swell further, resulting in an even more robust holiday retail season than the October data indicate.” A leap of faith. Gallup was practically giddy in its extrapolation, but has since gotten slammed by Friday’s plunge in the Reuter’s/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index.

Hope mongers are trying salvage the situation. And maybe they’re trying to come to grips with
what consumers are actually going to do in this quagmire of an economy where only a few benefit while the vast majority struggle to make ends meet, which is about the only thing that even the most gloriously optimistic survey confirmed: any growth will have to come from the few who can splurge. The rest of the consumers are simply too strung out; and now they're getting even more skittish, and they’re retrenching.

Selling airline tickets to our increasingly pauperized consumers is an art. Hiding price increases is an even greater art. While there are people who don’t worry about the price as they luxuriate in first class, others aren’t so lucky. For them, the industry has a special treat: squeezing their hips. Read…  The Indelicacies of Hiding Inflation.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cJGwRu74N6U/story01.htm testosteronepit

The Distinction Between Human And Algo-Trading

Submitted by The World Complex

One more time–the distinction between human- and algo-trading

The markets do not act like they once did. The trading in certain stocks is operating on time-scales so small that they cannot be in response to human thought. Not only are certain individuals able to access key information before others and so respond to news releases faster than the speed of light, but certain entities have free range to post and cancel orders on a microsecond basis, and queue-jump by shaving off (or adding on) tiny fractions of a penny from their orders.

Stocks traded by humans tend to make significant moves on a timescale of minutes to days. Even when there is a news event that radically changes the apparent value of a company, if there are only humans in the market, the move takes time to occur. Below are a couple of charts for Detour Gold (I currently have no position in this stock)

Normally, when looked at on a ms timescale, the graph is not really distinguishable from a straight line.

The little squares occur because all the price-changes I saw in the course of the day were a penny. On this scale it scarcely matters which axis is the current price and which is the lagged-price.

Once the algos get involved, the millisecond phase space plots get a lot more interesting. Some of them are works of art! Below, some plots for Century Casinos (I have no position in this one, either). Data here.

 

 

Algos playing tug-o-war.

Nice to look at, but maybe not so nice to trade against.

Remember the adage about playing poker: If you don’t know who the sucker is . . .


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/M-Zbb3TG3UE/story01.htm Tyler Durden