The Dark Secret Of the Financial Services Industry

It’s almost never openly admitted in public, but the reality is that few if any investors actually beat the market in the long-term.

 

The reason for this is that most of the investment strategies employed by investors (professional or amateur) simply do not make money.

 

I know this runs counter to the claims of the entire financial services industry. But it is factually correct.

 

 In 2012, the S&P 500 roared up 16% including dividends. During that period, less than 40% of fund managers beat the market. Most investors could have simply invested in an index fund, paid less in fees, and done better.

 

If you spread out performance over the last two years (2011 and 2012) the results are even worsen with only 10% of funds beating the market.

 

If we stretch back even further, the results are even more dismal. For the ten years ended 1Q 2013, a mere 0.4% of mutual funds have beaten the market.

 

0.4%, as in less than half of one percent of funds.

 

These are investment “professionals,” folks whose jobs depend on producing gains, who cannot beat the market for any significant period.

 

The reason this fact is not better known is because the mutual fund industry usually closes its losing funds or merges them with other, better performing funds.

 

As a result, the mutual fund industry in general experiences a tremendous survivor bias. But the cold hard fact what I told you earlier: less than half of one percent of fund managers outperform the market over a ten-year period.

 

So how does one beat the market?

 

Cigar Butts and Moats.

 

“Cigar butts” was a term used by the father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, to describe investing in companies that trade at significant discounts to their underlying values. Graham likened these companies to old, used cigar butts that had been discarded, but which had just one more puff left in them.

 

Like discarded cigar butts, these investments were essentially “free”: investors had discarded them based on the perception that they had no value. 

 

However, many of these cigar butts do in fact have on last puff in them. And for a shrewd investor like Benjamin Graham, that last puff was the profit potential obtained by acquiring these companies at prices below their intrinsic value (below the value of the companies assets plus cash, minus its liabilities).

 

Graham used a lot of diversification, investing in hundreds of “cigar butts” to produce average annual gains of 20%, far outpacing the S&P 500’s 12.2% per year over the same time period.

 

So when I say that you can amass a fortune by investing in Cigar Butts, I’m not being facetious. For this reason, cigar butts, or deeply undervalued companies, will be a focus of this newsletter. And like Benjamin Graham, we’ll only be holding these companies in the short-term: until they reach their intrinsic value.

 

The other term, “moats” is in reference to the investments Warren Buffett, a student of Ben Graham and arguably the greatest living investor, seeks out…

 

Buffett amassed his enormous fortune through a systematic investment philosophy consisting of a few key ideas. However, the single most important one was buying companies with “moats” around them meaning that they have a competitive advantage that stops competitors from breaking into their market share.

 

Focus on these two approaches and you will fare well.

 

For a FREE Special Report on how to beat the market both during bull market and bear market runs, visit us at:

http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/special-reports.html

 

Best Regards

 

Phoenix Capital Research


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8w7SuGeLfEs/story01.htm Phoenix Capital Research

Senate Grills Bitcoins – Live Webcast

"Beyond Silk Road: Potential Risks, Threats, and Promises of Virtual Currencies" is the title of today's Senate hearing (from Homeland Security) on th eperils of Bitcoin. We are sure the exaggeration and exasperation will run high as Government offers up its Financial Crimes (and missing and exploited children) directors, and the de-centralized unregulated crypto-currency faces them down…

 

Live Stream (via Senate)

 

 

Witnesses
Panel I

    Jennifer Shasky Calvery
    Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
    U.S. Department of the Treasury

    Mythili Raman
    Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
    U.S. Department of Justice

    Edward W. Lowery III
    Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Investigative Division
    U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Panel II

    Ernie Allen
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

    Patrick Murck
    General Counsel
    The Bitcoin Foundation, Inc.

    Jeremy Allaire
    Chief Executive Officer
    Circle Internet Financial, Inc.

    Jerry Brito
    Senior Research Fellow, The Mercatus Center
    George Mason University

 

The best "brief" summary of what is Bitcoin…

 

Here is coindesk.com's color on what to expect…

Given the title, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Silk Road features heavily in some testimony. In particular, Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the US Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, uses it in his prepared statement as an example of why regulation of decentralized currencies should be “sufficiently robust”.

Anonymity vs privacy

Silk Road, the online black marketplace taken down by FBI investigators in October, highlights “challenges investigators face when they encounter these systems, some of which may ultimately require additional legal or regulatory tools,” Raman said, singling out the difficulty of accessing customer records as one of the most significant challenges facing law enforcers dealing with virtual currencies.

Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, is also worried about anonymity in virtual currencies. In his testimony, he will voice his concerns over the use of virtual currencies including bitcoin for child pornography and sex trafficking payments.

“In our consultations with law enforcement worldwide, we have heard the argument that there is a difference between privacy and anonymity. Law enforcement leaders embrace the broadest possible privacy protections for individuals, but emphasize that absolute internet anonymity is a prescription for catastrophe,” he says. “Our challenge is to find the right balance.”

Other testimony challenged those concerns about anonymity, though. “Anonymity is also a two-way street,” says Patrick Murck, general counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, in his prepared statement.

“A top dealer on Silk Road was actively working with federal law enforcement, the anonymity of Silk Road making it easier for them to make undercover drug deals and subsequent arrests,” he explains.

Murck also has some feedback for those that hold up Silk Road as an example of bitcoin’s dangers, cautioning against tying bitcoin and Silk Road too closely together. He cites the Genesis Block’s analysis of the contribution that Silk Road made to bitcoin pricing.

In late December 2010 and early 2011, people buying bitcoins to make Silk Road purchases may have spiked the price from $.30 up to $.80. The price was then boosted by mainstream media attention, before settling at around $5, he says. Further price spikes were unrelated to Silk Road, and even its takedown in October had little long-lasting effect.

“The less this colors public and policymaker assessments of Bitcoin, the better,” he argues in his testimony. “Criminals do turn the beneficial instruments of society to their ends. But overreacting to this simple and obvious fact because Bitcoin is exotic and new could delay Americans enjoyment of Bitcoin’s benefits, which are vastly greater than its potential costs.”

Decentralized vs centralized currencies

Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of its Technology Policy Program, testifies that a decentralized currency like bitcoin would in any case be less appealing to online crooks than a centralized digital currency, like Liberty Reserve, which was taken down after its founders were arrested.

While of growing concern, to date, virtual currencies have yet to overtake more traditional methods to move funds internationally.

“Serious criminals looking to hide their tracks are more likely to choose a centralized virtual currency run by an intermediary willing to lie to regulators for a fee, rather than a decentralized currency like bitcoin that, as a technical matter, must make a record of every transaction, even if pseudonymously,” Brito points out.

Brito compares centralized digital currency Liberty Reserve’s estimated $6bn in crime-related revenues to under $200m in drug sales via Silk Road. He adjusts the Silk Road revenues down from the oft-quoted $1bn figure to reflect bitcoin value over the entire period.

At least one regulator seems sympathetic. FinCEN director Jennifer Shasky Calvery points out in her testimony that virtual currencies have yet to overtake more traditional methods to move funds internationally, whether for legi
timate or criminal purposes.

“Any financial institution could be exploited for money laundering purposes,” she points out, adding, “While of growing concern, to date, virtual currencies have yet to overtake more traditional methods to move funds internationally, whether for legitimate or criminal purposes.”

Inter-departmental collaboration

FinCEN itself is hard at work, and several FinCEN virtual currency experts gave a comprehensive presentation on the topic to an audience of Federal and state bank examiners at an FFIEC Payment Systems Risk Conference, Calvery says, adding that the agency also works with the FBI, with the Treasury Cyber Working Group, and “a community of other financial intelligence units”.

This inter-departmental collaboration is an important strut of the government’s approach to law enforcement in virtual currency, says Raman, especially in the context of the Government’s Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. The Department of Justice works closely with FinCEN and the State Department, and it was this relationship that enabled the co-ordinated targeting of Liberty Reserve, he says, adding:

“Such coordinated actions are integral tools in combating illicit finance. Investigations into illicit virtual currency businesses therefore often require considerable cooperation from international partners.”

He highlighted the fact that the Liberty Reserve takedown involved co-operation between 17 countries.

The Foundation is eager to talk up its relationship with regulators, even if Murck finds “details on which we might quibble,” such as the Foundation’s desire for a notice-and-comment process before FinCEN issued its new virtual currency guidance in March. However, the Foundation has found federal regulators welcoming on the whole, he says.

Harsh words for state regulators

He reserved harsh words for regulators at the state level, however, particularly calling out “one state regulator”, which he said issued 22 subpoenas to bitcoin-related businesses, and made TV statements about “narcoterrorism”. He’s referring to New York’s Department of Financial Services, who made that statement on the air.

“Irresponsible public statements like these make it more likely that legitimate bitcoin businesses will relocate to more welcoming countries,” Murck said.

However, he added that he saw positive signs among both state regulators and banking executives, indicating that greater understanding is coming.

Calvery echoed Murck’s conciliatory overtones, talking about an outreach effort to court the bitcoin community. FinCEN met with the Bitcoin Foundation in late August, and has invited it to present to a Congressionally-chartered forum, the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG) scheduled for mid-December.

Jeremy Allaire, founder of merchant payment services firm Circle Internet Financial, which recently received $9m in funding, also wants a collaborative approach to regulation. He identifies several dangers for an unregulated bitcoin community in his testimony, including tax dodging, fraud, and terrorism. Illiquidity and volatility are two other dangers, he warned, predicting wild price fluctuation if central banks and institutional investors are not able to act as market-makers in bitcoin.

“I believe we are at the forefront of another twenty year journey of Internet-led transformation, this time in our global financial systems, and the opportunity is to foster that economic change while simultaneously putting in place the safeguards that only government can enable,” he says.

 


    



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

New York Times Panics Over Un-Risky Drug Buprenorphine

The New  York Times on Sunday did one of its

usual bits of fearmongering
over the fact that someone,
somewhere might use a useful drug in a way they and authorities
disapprove of or which might even be dangerous to a few people.

This very, very, very long story was about buprenorphine, a drug
used to treat opioid addiction, and unlike methadone actually
available by prescription in the form of “suboxone,” where it is
mixed with naloxone, an opiate-cancelling drug. (You know, so no
one would enjoy it.)

While occasionally acknowledging its lifesaving properties, the
piece can’t help but make it seem more important that someone
somewhere is using it in unapproved ways, or harming themselves
with it, with its long, long narratives of people unhappy with
their choice to take too much of it, or people committing armed
robbery to get it, or doctors who sell it to people who aren’t
“supposed” to have it, or allowing the drug to slip from the
state’s control when the permitted choose to sell it to the
unpermitted.

But, way, way toward the end of this stunningly long story you
find:

Most buprenorphine advocates interviewed said they believed that
deaths were extremely rare. But Suboxone and Subutex [a version
lacking naloxone] were considered the “primary suspect” in 690
deaths — 420 in the United States — reported to the F.D.A. from
spring 2003 through September…..

The F.D.A. information, which is spare, does show that more than
half the American buprenorphine deaths involved other substances
and that only two of 224 cases specifying “route of administration”
indicated injection — the primary concern of regulators.

Fifty deaths are listed as suicides, and 69 involve
unintentional overdoses, drug abuse or drug misuse. Thirty were
fetal or infant deaths after exposure in the womb….

The F.D.A. cautions against assuming that a “primary suspect”
drug was indeed a cause of death.

What does that mean, comparatively?
According to U.S. DEA data
:

IMS HealthTM National Prescription Audit Plus
indicates that 9.3 million buprenorphine prescriptions were
dispensed in the U.S. in 2012. From January to March 2013, 2.5
million buprenorphine prescriptions were
dispensed. 

And that’s just in the past couple of years, those over 10
million licit uses for people who think (or whose doctors think) it
might be useful for them, compared to those 420 deaths over about
the past decade for which the drug might maybe have been
responsible.

Occasional Reason contributor Maia Szalavitz at the
Huffington Post
took on the

Baltimo
re
Sun
for trying to do the same five years
ago:

Using story after story of street abuse and sales, it presents a
bleak picture of a drug that has actually done exactly what it is
supposed to do when it is provided medically: reduce harm related
to opioid misuse.

The Sun
 seems to see such harm reduction as failure: To
the reporters, the existence of any level of misuse is cause for
concern, and perhaps, increased regulation. It doesn’t much matter
whether buprenorphine saves lives, reduces infections and increases
functioning – all that counts are that some addicts are still
injecting and getting high and some prescriptions are still being
sold.

Former Reason man Mike Riggs at the Atlantic

has some data
on how many opioid-related drug overdose deaths
are happening while the FDA dither over making the lifesaving
anti-opioid drug naloxone (a part of suboxone, recall) available
over the counter:

More than 300,000 people died from drug poisoning in the U.S.
between 1999 and 2009. That first year, opioid analgesics—drugs
like methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone—were
responsible for 21 percent of drug poisoning deaths. By 2009, that
number had increased to 42 percent, or 15,597 dead, making
prescription painkillers the leading cause of drug-poisoning
deaths…

…..over the decade-long period covered in the study, the
number of counties that had more than 10 drug-poisoning deaths per
100,000 residents increased from 3 percent to 54 percent, and the
drug-poisoning death rate increased 394 percent in rural
counties and 279 percent for large central metropolitan counties.
The study authors say 90 percent of those deaths were related to
prescription drugs, opioids in particular. 

Reason on
naloxone
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/18/new-york-times-panics-over-un-risky-drug
via IFTTT

Marc Faber Exposes The Consequences Of A Dysfunctional Political System

Submitted by Marc Faber via The Daily Reckoning blog,

As H.L. Mencken opined, 'The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.'

It is no wonder that, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in early October, a record-low 14% of Americans thought that the country was headed in the right direction, down from 30% in September. That's the biggest single-month drop in the poll since the shutdown of 1990. Some 78% think the country is on the wrong track.

Some readers will, of course, ask what this expose about the political future has to do with investments. It has nothing to do with what the stock market will do tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or in the next three months. But it has a lot to do with the future of the US (and other Western democracies where socio-political conditions are hardly any better).

I have written about the consequences of a dysfunctional political system elsewhere. In May 2011 I explained how expansionary monetary policies had favoured what Joseph Stiglitz called 'the elite' at the expense of ordinary people by increasing the wealth and income of the 'one percent' far more than that of the majority of the American people.

b
click to enlarge

I also quoted at the time Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813), who opined as follows: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship'.

Later, Alexis de Tocqueville observed: 'The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.'

To be fair to Mr. Obama, the government debt under his administration has expanded at a much slower pace in percentage terms than under the Reagan administration and the two Bush geniuses. In fact, as much as I hate to say this, Mr. Obama has been (or has been forced to be) a fiscal conservative.

b
click to enlarge

However, what 18th and 19th century economists and social observers failed to observe is that democracies can also collapse over loose monetary policies. And in this respect, under the Obama administration, the Fed's balance sheet has exploded. John Maynard Keynes got it 100% right when he wrote:

'By a continuing process of inflation, Governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…

'Those to whom the system brings windfalls…become 'profiteers' who are the object of the hatred… The process of wealth getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery… Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.'

The Fed takes great pride in the fact that US household wealth has now exceeded the 2007 high. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I recently attended a presentation by Larry Lindsey, at my friend Gary Bahre's New Hampshire estate. He unmistakably showed, based on the Fed's own Survey of Consumer Finance and Flow of Funds, that the recovery in household wealth has been extremely uneven.

b
click to enlarge

Readers should focus on the last column of Table 1, which depicts the change in household wealth between 2007 and 2013 by wealth percentile. As can be seen, the bottom 50% of the population is still down more than 40% in terms of their 'wealth' from the 2007 high. (Lindsey is a rather level-headed former Member of the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in which capacity he served between 1991 and 1997.)

Besides the uneven recovery of household wealth among different wealth groups, a closer look at consumer credit, which is now at a record level, is also revealing. Furthermore, consumer credit as a percentage of disposable personal income is almost at the pre-crisis high.

But what I found most interesting is how different income and wealth groups adjusted their outstanding total debt (including consumer credit, mortgage debt, etc.) following the crisis.

Larry Lindsey showed us a table – again based on the Fed's own Survey of Consumer Finance and Flow of Funds data – which depicts total debt increases and decreases (in US$ billions) among these different income and wealth groups.

I find it remarkable that the lower 40% of income recipients and the lower 50% of wealth owners actually increased their debts meaningfully post-2007. In other words, approximately 50% of Americans in the lower income and wealth groups who are both voters and consumers would seem to be more indebted than ever. A fair assumption is also that these people form the majority of the government's social benefits recipients.

Now, since these lower income and wealth groups increased their debts post-2007 and enjoyed higher social benefits, they were also to some extent supporting the economy and corporate profits. But what about the future?

Entitlements are unlikely to expand much further as a percentage of GDP, and these lower-income recipients' higher debts are likely to become a headwind for consumer spending. Simply put, in my opinion, it is most unlikely that US economic growth will surprise on the upside in the next few years.

It is more likely there will be negative surprises.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/nveMvo5ME5I/story01.htm Tyler Durden

US Planning To Train Libyan Security Forces in Bulgaria

According to Reuters, the U.S.
is planning to train
Libyan security forces
. The news comes as the Libyan government
continues to struggle with Islamists and militias that are impeding
attempts to restore some sort of order in the wake of Gaddafi’s
removal from power in 2011.

The instability in Libya has been highlighted by recent
kidnappings and violent clashes involving militias.

Last month, the
prime minister
was kidnapped and later released, and yesterday
Libya’s
deputy director of intelligence
was kidnapped at Tripoli
Airport.

Although many of the militias fought together to remove Gaddafi
from power, the BBC notes
that many remain in control of the towns where they formed.
Recently, Militia groups from Misrata were ordered to leave Tripoli
following violent clashes with protesters.

According to Army Col.
Steve Warren
,  Libyan security forces will be trained in
Bulgaria. Admiral William McRaven has said that this training will
come with risks.

From
Reuters
:

“Right now as we go forward to try and find a good way to build
up the Libyan security forces so they are not run by militias, we
are going to have to assume some risks,” McRaven told the forum
late on Saturday.

“There is probably some risk that some of the people we will be
training with do not have the most clean records. But at the end of
the day it is the best solution we can find to train them to deal
with their own problems.”

It is understandable that McRaven is wary of the risks involved
in training Libyan security forces. Coalition personnel have been
killed in so-called insider attacks
in Afghanistan.
Sixty-four
coalition troops were killed in such attacks last
year in Afghanistan, and according to reporting
from the AP
at the end of last month “insider attacks by Afghan
troops, or insurgents in their uniforms, have left 15 foreign
soldiers dead this year.”

Although plans still need to be finalized, it looks like Libyan
security forces could be receiving training from Americans for some
time. According to Reuters, Bulgaria’s defense minister said in
September that the U.S. plans to train Libyan forces in Bulgaria
for up to eight years.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/18/us-planning-to-train-libyan-security-for
via IFTTT

THe ALMiGHTiER BiTCoiN…

PANNING FOR BITCOINS
.

 

 

 

MINING FOR BITCOINS

 

 

 

.
BITCOIN CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

.
BITCOIN PACMAN

 

By @blumaberlin

Visual Combat Warrior

 

.
BITCOIN VERSUS THE DOLLAR

 

 

 

.
BEN BERNANKE WTF!
.

 

With Benjamins stuffed up his nose

The monster inside Benny grows

It’s taken control

He’s losing his soul

Has Ben gone insane?

…no one knows!

The Limerick King

.

 

 

.
MAD BEN
.

 

Ben has an interesting sign

It speaks to the nation’s decline

He wants assets higher

And fools as a buyer

This moron is crossing the line

The Limerick King

 

 

.
THE ALMIGHTIER


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/atpIDsBn5v8/story01.htm williambanzai7

The Failure Of Abenomics In One Chart… When Even The Japanese Press Admits "Easing Is Not Working"

Since late 2012 Zero Hedge has been very critical of Japan’s Abenomics experiment, and its first and only real arrow: a massive increase in the monetary base thanks to the BOJ’s shock and awe QE announced in April, resulting in the collapse of the Yen (although in a not zero sum world this means ever louder complaints from US exporters such as Ford competing with Japanese companies), a soaring Nikkei (if only through May), and what was expected to be an economic renaissance as a result of a return to stable 2% inflation.

We repeatedly warned that the only inflation anyone would see in Japan is in imported energy costs and food prices, which in turn would crush real disposable income especially once nominal wage deflation accelerated, which it has for the past 16 months straight. So far this has happened precisely as warned.

Another thing we warned about is that the result of the bank reserves tsunami – just like in the US – lending in Japan would grind to a halt, as everyone and their grandmother sought to invest the resulting excess deposits in risk markets as exemplified best by JPMorgan’s CIO division.

Today, with the traditional one year delay (we assume they had to give it the benefit of the doubt), the mainstream media once again catches up to what Zero Hedge readers knew over a year ago, and blasts the outright failure that is Abenomics, but not only in the US (with the domestic honor falling to the WSJ), but also domestically, in a truly damning op-ed in the Japan Times.

We will let readers peruse the WSJ’s “Japan’s Banks Find It Hard to Lend Easy Money: Dearth of Borrowers Illustrates Difficulty in Japan’s Program to Increase Money Supply” on their own. It summarizes one aspect of what we have been warning about – namely the blocked monetary pipeline, something the US has been fighting with for the past five years, and will continue fighting as long as QE continues simply because the “solution” to the problem, i.e., even more QE, just makes the problem worse.

We will however, show the one chart summary which captures all the major failures of the BOJ quite succinctly.

More importantly, we will repost the Japan Times Op-Ed from last night, titled “BOJ’s money mountain growing but debt may explode” because it not only copies all we have said over the past year, but is a dramatic reversal from the Japanese population eagerly drinking Abe’s Koolaid long after its expiration date. Because once the media starts asking questions, the broader population can’t be far behind.

From Japan Times, November 17, 2013 highlights ours

BOJ’s money mountain growing but debt may explode

by Reiji Yoshida

Haruhiko Kuroda hit the ground running when he was appointed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in March to take charge of the Bank of Japan.

Out of the blue, the central bank’s new governor unveiled a super-aggressive easing policy the next month to double the nation’s monetary base in just two years. He said the BOJ would buy more than ¥7 trillion in long-term Japanese government bonds per month to flood the financial system with money to end more than a decade of deflation.

The BOJ’s nine-member Policy Board unanimously supported Kuroda’s goal of stoking 2 percent inflation in two years — a surprise about-face from its stance under his predecessor, Masaaki Shirakawa, who was concerned about the potential side effects of embracing such radical quantitative easing.

More than six months have passed. How has the BOJ’s strategy changed Japan’s financial markets and the real economy?

Critics say Kuroda’s monetary easing scheme isn’t working, although most of the public apparently believes otherwise.

There are growing signs of inflation, but not the sort heralding the start of Abe’s much-advertised recovery and rising wages. Instead, imported fuel and other products have become more expensive because of the weak yen ushered in by Kuroda and Abe, and this bodes ill for the public’s living standards.

Meanwhile, Kuroda’s aggressive plan is allowing the debt-ridden government to issue fresh bonds continuously, further increasing the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, they said.

People have been deceived by ‘Abenomics,’ ” Yukio Noguchi, a prominent economist and adviser to Waseda University’s Institute of Financial Studies, told The Japan Times in a recent interview.

Monetary easing is not working, and it’s going nowhere,” Noguchi said.

Since April, the BOJ has been gobbling up JGBs from banks and the open market. Its purchases amount to roughly 70 percent of the value of all new JGBs issued.

But the banks are just stowing that money in their accounts at the BOJ because they can’t find any companies interested in borrowing it.

“There is no demand for funds on the part of businesses. That’s why the monetary easing is not working,” Noguchi said.

Japan’s monetary base — the sum of cash in circulation plus banks’ current account balances at the BOJ — surged from 23.1 percent in April to 45.8 percent in October, thanks to the BOJ’s aggressive operations.

But its money stock — the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy including credit created by bank loans, but excluding deposits held by financial institutions and the central government — only rose to 3.3 percent from 2.3 percent in the period.

This means banks are just depositing the massive funds provided by the BOJ in their own accounts at the central bank. The unloaned cash is thus having little affect on the real economy.

Meanwhile, the long-term interest rate, which theoretically factors in an expected rate of inflation, has fallen and is dwindling at an ultralow level of around 0.6 percent.

This signals that the market does not yet seriously believe that inflation in Japan will reach Kuroda’s 2 percent goal, said Kazuhito Ikeo, an economics professor at Keio University.

“When the policy interest rate has effectively fallen to zero, monetary policy won’t work much any more,” Ikeo said in a recent interview.

Ikeo believes the economy is stuck in a rut because its potential for economic growth has declined and monetary measures alone can’t solve the problem, he said.

“I think it has become clearer that there is a limit to what monetary policy can do,” Ikeo said.

Much of the public believes the drastic easing measures adopted by Abe and Kuroda helped weaken the yen and benefitted exporters. The yen-dollar rate has fallen from around 78 to about 100 over the past 14 months. This helped send the Nikkei stock index soaring from December, one of the main reasons Abenomics has public support.

But the yen started depreciating last fall, long before Kuroda’s widely proposed takeover at the BOJ officially took place in April, Noguchi said.

Abe was just “lucky” to see the yen fall, Noguchi claimed, crediting the easing of the eurozone debt crisis last fall rather than clear signs that Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party was getting ready to boot the unpopular Democratic Party of Japan from power.

In September, Japan’s consumer price index rose 0.7 percent from the same month last year to log its fourth consecu
tive rise, hinting at inflation. The uptick, however, was misleading. It was largely caused by the costly rise in energy imports, exacerbated by a weaker yen.

This, of course, is not a sign of economic recovery, both Noguchi and Ikeo said.

Workers’ real wages fell 2 percent in August compared with the same month the previous year, logging two drops in a row. Inflation without wage hikes will only erode people’s living standards.

“It is wages that matter. If prices go up without a rise in wages, the real income of the people just goes down,” Noguchi said.

Abe apparently is well aware of this risk and has repeatedly urged top business leaders in Keidanren, the nation’s largest business lobby, to push for wage hikes to generate “a virtuous cycle” of raises and economic expansion.

Noguchi calls Abe’s approach “sheer nonsense” because Japan is not a planned economy and the government thus cannot force businesses to raise wages against their will.

Probably the biggest risk with Abenomics, however, is a potential crash in JGB prices that would cause long-term interest rates to spike and gut the debt-laden government.

Ikeo pointed out that the BOJ’s massive bond purchases are in fact helping the debt-ridden government finance itself, even if the central bank claims this is not its intention. If the BOJ keeps up this charade, confidence in JGBs might crash, Ikeo said.

Soon or later, concerns over fiscal sustainability will emerge. You can’t rule out the possibility of a surge in the (long-term) interest rate at a critical point,” he said.

The resulting surge in debt-serving costs would devastate the government, which has already racked up a public debt totaling almost 200 percent of gross domestic product — the highest of all developed countries. Nearly half of Japan’s ¥92.6 trillion general account for fiscal 2013 is barely being financed by fresh JGB issues.

According to Noguchi’s simulation, if the average JGB yield jumps to 4 percent in fiscal 2014, debt-serving costs will leap to a staggering ¥50 trillion in fiscal 2025 alone, which is more than half the size of the fiscal 2013 budget.

“This is nothing but fiscal bankruptcy,” Noguchi warned.

For some two decades, fears and rumors have swirled about just such a scenario. Economists who warned of the impending crisis were labeled alarmists while speculators who bet on it always lost.

That situation may soon change.

Japan’s trade balance has turned into a deficit and the current account surplus has shrunk. Japan posted a surplus of ¥3.05 trillion in the current account for the April-September half, the second-lowest level since 1985, when comparable data became available.

Ikeo warned that if the current account balance sinks into red and people are convinced the yen will no longer strengthen, investors may start buying foreign bonds and ditch their JGBs.

Another possible danger is, ironically, a full-fledged economic rebound, which would also push up long-term interest rates, Ikeo said.

The government needs to walk “a dangerous narrow path” of seeking a recovery while trying to prevent interest rates from surging at the same time, he said.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/54ep3jNUAqI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Failure Of Abenomics In One Chart… When Even The Japanese Press Admits “Easing Is Not Working”

Since late 2012 Zero Hedge has been very critical of Japan’s Abenomics experiment, and its first and only real arrow: a massive increase in the monetary base thanks to the BOJ’s shock and awe QE announced in April, resulting in the collapse of the Yen (although in a not zero sum world this means ever louder complaints from US exporters such as Ford competing with Japanese companies), a soaring Nikkei (if only through May), and what was expected to be an economic renaissance as a result of a return to stable 2% inflation.

We repeatedly warned that the only inflation anyone would see in Japan is in imported energy costs and food prices, which in turn would crush real disposable income especially once nominal wage deflation accelerated, which it has for the past 16 months straight. So far this has happened precisely as warned.

Another thing we warned about is that the result of the bank reserves tsunami – just like in the US – lending in Japan would grind to a halt, as everyone and their grandmother sought to invest the resulting excess deposits in risk markets as exemplified best by JPMorgan’s CIO division.

Today, with the traditional one year delay (we assume they had to give it the benefit of the doubt), the mainstream media once again catches up to what Zero Hedge readers knew over a year ago, and blasts the outright failure that is Abenomics, but not only in the US (with the domestic honor falling to the WSJ), but also domestically, in a truly damning op-ed in the Japan Times.

We will let readers peruse the WSJ’s “Japan’s Banks Find It Hard to Lend Easy Money: Dearth of Borrowers Illustrates Difficulty in Japan’s Program to Increase Money Supply” on their own. It summarizes one aspect of what we have been warning about – namely the blocked monetary pipeline, something the US has been fighting with for the past five years, and will continue fighting as long as QE continues simply because the “solution” to the problem, i.e., even more QE, just makes the problem worse.

We will however, show the one chart summary which captures all the major failures of the BOJ quite succinctly.

More importantly, we will repost the Japan Times Op-Ed from last night, titled “BOJ’s money mountain growing but debt may explode” because it not only copies all we have said over the past year, but is a dramatic reversal from the Japanese population eagerly drinking Abe’s Koolaid long after its expiration date. Because once the media starts asking questions, the broader population can’t be far behind.

From Japan Times, November 17, 2013 highlights ours

BOJ’s money mountain growing but debt may explode

by Reiji Yoshida

Haruhiko Kuroda hit the ground running when he was appointed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in March to take charge of the Bank of Japan.

Out of the blue, the central bank’s new governor unveiled a super-aggressive easing policy the next month to double the nation’s monetary base in just two years. He said the BOJ would buy more than ¥7 trillion in long-term Japanese government bonds per month to flood the financial system with money to end more than a decade of deflation.

The BOJ’s nine-member Policy Board unanimously supported Kuroda’s goal of stoking 2 percent inflation in two years — a surprise about-face from its stance under his predecessor, Masaaki Shirakawa, who was concerned about the potential side effects of embracing such radical quantitative easing.

More than six months have passed. How has the BOJ’s strategy changed Japan’s financial markets and the real economy?

Critics say Kuroda’s monetary easing scheme isn’t working, although most of the public apparently believes otherwise.

There are growing signs of inflation, but not the sort heralding the start of Abe’s much-advertised recovery and rising wages. Instead, imported fuel and other products have become more expensive because of the weak yen ushered in by Kuroda and Abe, and this bodes ill for the public’s living standards.

Meanwhile, Kuroda’s aggressive plan is allowing the debt-ridden government to issue fresh bonds continuously, further increasing the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, they said.

People have been deceived by ‘Abenomics,’ ” Yukio Noguchi, a prominent economist and adviser to Waseda University’s Institute of Financial Studies, told The Japan Times in a recent interview.

Monetary easing is not working, and it’s going nowhere,” Noguchi said.

Since April, the BOJ has been gobbling up JGBs from banks and the open market. Its purchases amount to roughly 70 percent of the value of all new JGBs issued.

But the banks are just stowing that money in their accounts at the BOJ because they can’t find any companies interested in borrowing it.

“There is no demand for funds on the part of businesses. That’s why the monetary easing is not working,” Noguchi said.

Japan’s monetary base — the sum of cash in circulation plus banks’ current account balances at the BOJ — surged from 23.1 percent in April to 45.8 percent in October, thanks to the BOJ’s aggressive operations.

But its money stock — the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy including credit created by bank loans, but excluding deposits held by financial institutions and the central government — only rose to 3.3 percent from 2.3 percent in the period.

This means banks are just depositing the massive funds provided by the BOJ in their own accounts at the central bank. The unloaned cash is thus having little affect on the real economy.

Meanwhile, the long-term interest rate, which theoretically factors in an expected rate of inflation, has fallen and is dwindling at an ultralow level of around 0.6 percent.

This signals that the market does not yet seriously believe that inflation in Japan will reach Kuroda’s 2 percent goal, said Kazuhito Ikeo, an economics professor at Keio University.

“When the policy interest rate has effectively fallen to zero, monetary policy won’t work much any more,” Ikeo said in a recent interview.

Ikeo believes the economy is stuck in a rut because its potential for economic growth has declined and monetary measures alone can’t solve the problem, he said.

“I think it has become clearer that there is a limit to what monetary policy can do,” Ikeo said.

Much of the public believes the drastic easing measures adopted by Abe and Kuroda helped weaken the yen and benefitted exporters. The yen-dollar rate has fallen from around 78 to about 100 over the past 14 months. This helped send the Nikkei stock index soaring from December, one of the main reasons Abenomics has public support.

But the yen started depreciating last fall, long before Kuroda’s widely proposed takeover at the BOJ officially took place in April, Noguchi said.

Abe was just “lucky” to see the yen fall, Noguchi claimed, crediting the easing of the eurozone debt crisis last fall rather than clear signs that Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party was getting ready to boot the unpopular Democratic Party of Japan from power.

In September, Japan’s consumer price index rose 0.7 percent from the same month last year to log its fourth consecutive rise, hinting at inflation. The uptick, however, was misleading. It was largely caused by the costly rise in energy imports, exacerbated by a weaker yen.

This, of course, is not a sign of economic recovery, both Noguchi and Ikeo said.

Workers’ real wages fell 2 percent in August compared with the same month the previous year, logging two drops in a row. Inflation without wage hikes will only erode people’s living standards.

“It is wages that matter. If prices go up without a rise in wages, the real income of the people just goes down,” Noguchi said.

Abe apparently is well aware of this risk and has repeatedly urged top business leaders in Keidanren, the nation’s largest business lobby, to push for wage hikes to generate “a virtuous cycle” of raises and economic expansion.

Noguchi calls Abe’s approach “sheer nonsense” because Japan is not a planned economy and the government thus cannot force businesses to raise wages against their will.

Probably the biggest risk with Abenomics, however, is a potential crash in JGB prices that would cause long-term interest rates to spike and gut the debt-laden government.

Ikeo pointed out that the BOJ’s massive bond purchases are in fact helping the debt-ridden government finance itself, even if the central bank claims this is not its intention. If the BOJ keeps up this charade, confidence in JGBs might crash, Ikeo said.

Soon or later, concerns over fiscal sustainability will emerge. You can’t rule out the possibility of a surge in the (long-term) interest rate at a critical point,” he said.

The resulting surge in debt-serving costs would devastate the government, which has already racked up a public debt totaling almost 200 percent of gross domestic product — the highest of all developed countries. Nearly half of Japan’s ¥92.6 trillion general account for fiscal 2013 is barely being financed by fresh JGB issues.

According to Noguchi’s simulation, if the average JGB yield jumps to 4 percent in fiscal 2014, debt-serving costs will leap to a staggering ¥50 trillion in fiscal 2025 alone, which is more than half the size of the fiscal 2013 budget.

“This is nothing but fiscal bankruptcy,” Noguchi warned.

For some two decades, fears and rumors have swirled about just such a scenario. Economists who warned of the impending crisis were labeled alarmists while speculators who bet on it always lost.

That situation may soon change.

Japan’s trade balance has turned into a deficit and the current account surplus has shrunk. Japan posted a surplus of ¥3.05 trillion in the current account for the April-September half, the second-lowest level since 1985, when comparable data became available.

Ikeo warned that if the current account balance sinks into red and people are convinced the yen will no longer strengthen, investors may start buying foreign bonds and ditch their JGBs.

Another possible danger is, ironically, a full-fledged economic rebound, which would also push up long-term interest rates, Ikeo said.

The government needs to walk “a dangerous narrow path” of seeking a recovery while trying to prevent interest rates from surging at the same time, he said.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/54ep3jNUAqI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Hey, Is It A Problem That We're All On One Side Of The Boat?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

It may appear to be safe for everyone to be on the same side of the boat, but the gunwale is awfully close to the water.

Gee, we're all on one side of the boat now–long the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow, Eurozone stocks, the Nikkei, not to mention rental housing, junk bonds, bat quano, 'roo belly futures and the quatloo–basically every "risk-on" trade on the planet–is that a problem?

The conventional (and convenient) answer is "nah–stocks can only rise from here." So what if market bears have fallen to 15% or less? So what if 85% of investors are on the same side of the boat? You'd be nuts to leave the winning side, the trend-is-your-friend side, the "don't fight the Fed" side, the side with all the "smart money."

It may appear to be safe for everyone to be on the same side of the boat, but the gunwale is awfully close to the water. With the sea remarkably calm (i.e. no waves of turbulence or volatility), the fact that the boat is overloaded doesn't seem dangerous.

But once the sea rises even a bit and water starts lapping over the gunwale, the "guaranteed safety" of the bullish trade might start looking questionable.

When the boat takes on water quicker than anyone believes possible and capsizes, it will be "every punter for himself." But few longside punters are wearing lifejackets.

This is all Investing 101: be wary of extremes of euphoria and confidence and being on the same side of the trade as everyone else. Yet everyone continues adding to their long positions without adding portfolio protection (puts, etc.):

Three indicators suggest this move will reverse shortly, either in a "healthy correction" or a reversal of trend–which one cannot be determined until the downturn is underway.

The rapid rise of the market has traced out a bearish rising wedge. This pattern usually leads to some sort of correction. The MACD histogram is divergent, dropping to the neutral line as the SPX has soared ever higher.

Lastly, price has pulled away from both the 50-day and 200-day Moving Averages, suggesting the rubber band is remarkably stretched.

Round-number attractors are close at hand. The SPX at 1798 is two measly points from the round-number attractor of 1800, and the Dow at 15,961 is a coin-toss away from its round-number attractor of 16,000. This level will invite great cheering ("new all time high," never mind adjusting for inflation) and also present an opportunity for the imbalanced boat to capsize.

Even more astonishing, the crowd is also betting on volatility declining from extreme lows. Look at the put and call options on the VXX, a security that tracks the short-term volatility of the VIX: at the money December calls (bets volatility will rise by December 20) number 311 while puts (bets volatility will decline some time between now and December 20) number 11,265.

Hey, you 311 bears! Join us 11,265 longs on the guaranteed winning side of the boat! Uh, thank you for the kind offer, but no thanks. Though the uncrowded side is uncomfortably above the water at this point, with 11,265 fattened Bulls on the side close to the waterline, the few on this side are less likely to be trampled when physics trumps psychology.

Hey all you PhDs in Behavioral Economics: perhaps you could investigate the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" nature of this psychological conundrum:the market can only do what few expect of it, so if everyone is looking for bubbles, there can't be any bubbles. But what else do you call a market that rises 10+% in a mere 6 weeks?

In other words, if people are looking at the market and realizing it is dangerously close to capsizing, then it can't capsize because the market can only capsize if nobody expects it. The absurdity of this argument is revealed by turning it around: if Bulls confidently expect the market to keep rising, then how can it rise when everybody expects it to rise?

The answer to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is the same as the answer to the question, "How many Bulls can crowd on one side of the trade without capsizing the boat if there are 311 Bears on the other side?" The absurdly concise answer is 11,265–at least for now.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/i8oTZoO4pzM/story01.htm Tyler Durden