Wednesday, May 7, 2014

How a Big Cat Started Europe’s Addiction to Crude Oil

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

On July 1, 1911, a German gunboat named Panther sailed into the port of Agadir, Morocco, and changed history. For the previous two decades, a faction within the British Admiralty had called for the navy to switch from coal fired ships to ones powered by a new fuel. Admiral John Fisher, First Sea Lord, led the charge, trumpeting oil’s numerous advantages: It had nearly twice the thermal content of coal, required less manpower to use, allowed refueling at sea, and burned with less telltale smoke.

Doesn’t matter, replied naval tradition: Britain lacks oil, and she has lots of coal. The switch would put the greatest navy in the world at the mercy of burgeoning oil rich countries and the oil trusts that operate in them. (It didn’t help that the navy’s first test of oil firing in 1903 engulfed the ship in a cloud of black smoke.)


It wasn’t common knowledge at the time, but Germany had surpassed the mighty British Empire in manufacturing in the late 1800s, most notably in the production of steel. Britain’s manufacturing base had largely moved abroad, taking investment along with it. Germany, meanwhile, was determined to build up the quality as well as quantity of its goods. That included its military technology and capacity, especially its navy. Has a familiar ring, doesn’t it?

Then came the Panther. Germany said she was there to protect German businessmen in restive Morocco, a reason more credible had there actually been German businessmen in Morocco. Britain read it as a challenge to its supremacy, a maneuver toward expansionism, and a threat to trade routes west out of the Mediterranean.

Britain’s young, up and coming home secretary wondered what specifications would be required to outmaneuver the ships of Germany’s growing navy. The war college gave a deceptively simple answer: a speed of at least 25 knots.

Coal couldn’t do it—too many boilers, too much weight, too long to build up a head of steam, too short a range. But oil could.

With the Panther’s arrival in Morocco, Admiral Fisher’s faction gained a new and eloquent advocate for converting the British Navy to oil, and it wasn’t long before Home Secretary Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty and the fellow whom history often credits with guiding the British Empire’s destiny with oil.

Germany’s Great Game

 

If Britain were to switch its navy to oil, it would need a secure supply of the stuff. Churchill saw that the struggling Anglo-Persian Oil Co. had the resources, but lacked the cash.

With Germany setting its cap for control of Middle Eastern oil—building a railroad between Berlin and Baghdad was the last straw—it wasn’t hard for Churchill to convince the Parliament that cutting a deal with Anglo-Persian Oil Co. was a good idea.

In exchange for an infusion of cash, the British government got 51% of the company’s stock. A hush hush rider on that deal was a contract for Anglo-Persian to supply oil to the Royal Navy, with very favorable terms, for the next 20 years.

All this happened just in time for the spark that finally ignited the Great War, or as we call it today, World War I. Because of Churchill’s preparations, among them a new class of oil-fired ships, Allied naval forces were able to restrict the flow of essential supplies to Germany.

By war’s end, every country realized the strategic importance of a secure supply of oil. The players have been maneuvering ever since.

Fast-Forward 100 Years—the Rise of Mother Russia

 

The fortunes of the various players may change, but the scrimmage remains the same. Oil does everything from power vehicles on land and sea to supply manufacturers with the building blocks of medicines, plastics, and a host of other products.

The Soviet Union was a global powerhouse and a major oil producer until its disintegration in 1991, and Russia then had to shop hat in hand for loans to keep its economy afloat. It was largely its oil and gas resources that have enabled Vladimir Putin, Russia’s canny and forceful president, to wrest his country back onto the world stage of heavyweights in recent years. The European Union is currently Russia’s largest customer.

Indeed, Europe is feeling the squeeze from Russia, which has gunned hard to make it easy to get its oil and gas, but not so easy to keep getting them. Putin will happily play hardball with any country that won’t meet his terms—just ask Ukraine—and doesn’t mind if others down the line feel the sting of his stick.

The EU-28 imports over 50% of all the energy consumed. Russia provides about one-third of all the oil and natural gas imported by EU-28. Germany is the largest importer of Russian oil and natural gas.

The member countries of the European Union may be cheering Belarus on, but they’re also taking the hint from Russia. And they’d better: Between growing demand in Asia and instability in the Middle East, the European Union faces some serious energy challenges.

Slowly but surely, Europe is waking up to its situation. Alternative energies are a noble goal, but the hard truth is that the technology isn’t there yet to replace hydrocarbon fuels. For energy security, there’s little choice for EU countries but to back the oil and gas companies that call Europe home.

“We must get on and explore our resources in order to understand the potential,” declared Britain’s energy minister in July. Other countries, such as Germany, are taking on this pursuit as well. We believe that governments and oil giants in other European countries will follow their lead.

This article is from the Casey Daily Dispatch, a free daily e-letter written by renowned investment experts in the fields of precious metals, energy, technology, and crisis investing. Click here to get it your inbox every day.

The article How a Big Cat Started Europe’s Addiction to Oil was originally published at Casey Research



Advanced Gaps and Candlesticks Training....Just Click Here!
 


Is it Time to Admit That Gold Peaked in 2011?

By Jeff Clark, Senior Precious Metals Analyst

Have you seen this “real price of gold” chart that’s been making waves? Among other things, it purports to show the gold price adjusted for inflation over the past 223 years. Notice the 1980 vs. 2011 levels.



The chart makes it seem that on an inflation-adjusted basis, gold has matched its 1980 peak in 2011, or nearly so. A mainstream analyst who still thinks of gold as a “barbarous relic,” a government official who doesn’t want people to think of gold as money, or an Internet blogger looking for some attention might try to convince you that this proves that the gold bull market is over, arguing that the 2011 peak of $1,921 is the equivalent of the 1970s mania peak of $850 in January of 1980.

The logic is flawed, however; even if it were true that gold has matched its 1980 peak in inflation-adjusted prices, it would not prove that the top is in this time. This is not the 1970s, the global economy is under very different pressures, and there’s no rational basis at all for saying the top this time has to be at the same or similar level as last time.

That’s even if it were true that gold has matched its 1980 peak—but it hasn’t.

Inflation-Adjusted Gold Has NOT Matched Its 1980 Peak

 

First, if you go by official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic numbers, $850 in 1980 is equivalent to $2,320 in 2011, when gold hit its peak thus far in the current cycle. (It’s $2,403 in 2013 dollars, as is said to be used in the chart.)

We don’t know what data the authors of the chart used, nor their inflation adjustment method, so it’s hard to say what the problem is, but at the very least, we can say the chart is very misleading.

But there’s more. As you probably know, the government has made numerous changes to the way it calculates inflation—the Consumer Price Index (CPI)—since 1980. So, even the BLS number we’ve given grossly underestimates the real difference between the 2011 and 1980 peaks.

For a more apples to apples comparison, we should adjust for inflation using the government’s 1980 formula. And for that, whom better to ask than John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics (AKA Shadow Stats), the world’s leading expert on phony US government statistics?

I asked John to apply the CPI formula from January 1980 to the $1,921 gold price in 2011, to give us a more accurate inflation adjusted picture. Here’s what his data show.


Using the 1980 formula, the monthly average price of gold for January 1980 would be the equivalent of $8,598.80 today. The actual peak—$850 on January 21, 1980—isn’t shown in the chart, but it would equate to a whopping $10,823.70 today.

The Shadow Stats chart paints a completely different picture than the first chart. The current CPI formula grossly dilutes just how much inflation has occurred over the past 34 years. It’s so misleading that investment decisions based on it—like whether to buy or sell gold—could wreak havoc on a portfolio.

This could easily be the end of the discussion, but there are many more reasons to believe that the gold price has not peaked for the current bull cycle…...

Percentage Rise Has Been Much Smaller

 

Inflation adjusted numbers are not the only measure that matters. The percentage climb during the 1970s bull market was dramatically greater than what we experienced from 2001 to 2011. Here’s a comparison of the percentage gain during both periods.


From the 1970 low to the January 1980 peak, gold rose 2,346%. It climbed only 535% from the 2001 low to the September 2011 high—nowhere near mimicking that prior bull market.

Silver Scantly Participated in the 2011 Run-Up

 

After 31 years of trading, silver has yet to even reach its nominal price from 1980. It surged to $48.70 in 2011—but it hit $50 in January 1980.

On an inflation-adjusted basis, using the same data from John Williams, silver would need to hit $568 to match its 1980 equivalent.

The fact that silver has lagged this much—when its greater volatility would normally move its price by a greater percentage than gold—further shows that 2011 was not the equivalent of 1980.

No Bubble Characteristics in 2011

 

I’ll get some arguments from the mainstream on this one. “Of course gold was in a bubble in 2011—look at the chart!”

Yes, gold had a nice run-up that year. It rose 38.6% from January 1 to the September 6 peak. Anyone holding gold at that time was very happy. But that’s not a bubble. One of the major characteristics of a bubble is that prices go parabolic.

And that’s exactly what we saw in 1979-1980:
  • In the 12 months leading up to its January 21, 1980 peak, gold surged an incredible 270%.
  • In contrast, the year leading up to the September 6, 2011 peak, the price climbed 48%—very nice, but hardly parabolic, and less than a fifth of the 1970s runaway move.

No Global Phenomenon in 1980 (Next Time It Will Be)

 

In the 1970s, the “mania” was mostly a North American phenomenon. China and most of Asia didn’t participate. When inflation grips the world from all the money printing governments almost everywhere have engaged in, there will be a much greater demand for gold than in 1980.

When that day comes, there will be severe consequences for those who don’t have enough bullion. Not only will the price relentlessly move higher, but finding physical gold to buy may become very difficult.

Comparable Price Moves? So What?

 

The argument we started with is really the clincher. It doesn’t matter how today’s gold prices compare to those from prior bull markets; what matters are the factors likely to impact the price today. Are there reasons to own gold in the current environment—or not?

First, a comparison: Apple shares surged 112% in 2007. After such a run up, surely investors should’ve dumped it, right? Well, those who did likely regretted it, since it ended that year at $180 and trades over $590 today. In fact, even though it had already risen dramatically and in spite of it crashing with the market in 2008, there were plenty of solid reasons to buy the stock then, not the least of which was the introduction of the iPhone that year.

So should we sell gold because it rose 535% in a decade? As with the Apple example above, that’s not the right question.

There are, in fact, several more relevant questions for gold today:
  • What will happen with the unprecedented amount of money that’s been printed around the world since 2008?
  • Why are economies still sluggish after the biggest monetary experiment in history?
  • Global debt and “unfunded mandates” are at never-before-seen levels; how can this conceivably be paid off?
  • Interest rates are at historically low levels—what happens when they start to rise?
  • Regardless of your political affiliation, do you trust that government leaders have the ability and willingness to do what’s necessary to restore the economy to health?
If these issues were absent, maybe we’d change our position on precious metals. But until the word “healthy” can honestly be used to describe the fiscal, monetary, and economic state of our global civilization, gold should be held as an essential wealth-protection asset.

Today’s volatile world is exactly the kind of circumstance gold is best for.

The message here is clear, my friends. Regardless of the measure, gold has not matched its 1980 peak. And the reasons to own it have not faded. Indeed, they have grown. Continue to accumulate.

Learn about the best ways to invest in gold—how and when to buy it, where to store it for maximum safety, and how to find the best gold stocks—in the free 2014 Gold Investor’s Guide.

The article Time to Admit That Gold Peaked in 2011? was originally published at Casey Research


Check out our Advanced Study on Trading the Opening Gap in Crude Oil CL


Monday, May 5, 2014

Is this a "Bearish Outside Reversal" in Natural Gas?

June Natural Gas (NG.M14.E) opened sharply higher in Sunday evenings session, but since the open prices plummeted to a 5 day low. The sell off confirmed a bearish outside reversal ahead of today's U.S. session. June Natural Gas futures remain under pressure from last week's EIA storage report that showed a larger than expected supply build of 82 bcf. Recent weather forecasts have been calling for warmer temperatures across the country which could limit the size of upcoming supply injections.

In recent weeks, we have been in a sideways trend in the June Natural Gas Market as the market decides on which direction it is headed next. The technical analysis in Natural Gas points to bearish in the near term, making way for a potential swing trading opportunity.



In today's trading session, I will be looking to sell June Natural Gas futures at 4.660, or a breach of the 20 Day Moving Average. This breach would confirm the outside reversal in today’s trading session. My first downside target would be 4.500, a recent area of support in the market, at which point I would roll stops to break even. If the 4.500 are is hit, then I would look at 4.380 as my next target, which would be support from the long term trendline. To mitigate risk on the trade, stop loss orders should be placed just above today’s trading range and rolled behind the trade accordingly.

See you in the market!
 Posted courtesy of James Leeney and our trading partners at INO.com



Subscribe to our Free Market Technical Analysis and Commentary

 


Saturday, May 3, 2014

Commodities Market Recap and this Weeks Stops and Trading Numbers

Today our trading partner Michael Seery gives our readers a weekly recap of the Futures market. He has been a senior analyst for close to 15 years and has extensive knowledge of all of the commodity and option markets.....

Crude oil futures in the June contract finished up around $.35 this Friday afternoon in New York as prices were down about $2.00 for the trading week right near 4 week lows and I am neutral in this market currently and waiting for a better trend to develop as supplies are at 85 year highs here in the United States which is a bearish factor however you also have problems in the Ukrainian region which is a bullish indicator so this market could remain choppy so wait for better chart structure to develop. Crude oil futures are trading below their 20 day moving average but above their 100 day moving average telling you that the trend is mixed so look for a better trending market to get involved with.
TREND: MIXED
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Get our "Advanced Crude Oil Study – 15 Minute Range"

Natural gas futures in the June contract finished lower for the 3rd consecutive trading session finishing higher by 3 points for the trading week to close around 4.69 as I’m recommending a long position in this contract placing my stop loss below the 10 day low which stands at 4.50 risking around 20 points or $500 per contract as the trend is still higher in my opinion as the risk reward situation is highly in your favor as we enter the demand season of summer.

Natural gas prices have been in a bull market for quite some time and if you read some of my previous blogs several months back when prices were in the low $3 I was recommending if you have deep pockets and a longer term horizon to buy natural gas as prices were extremely cheap due to the fact of large supplies, however we had an extremely cold winter which reduced supplies dramatically and I do think natural gas prices will be sharply higher from today’s level in the next year as prices have bottomed out in my opinion.

As a trader I focus on today and tomorrow only so when I can buy a natural gas contract and risk 1,500 I will take that trade even if I don’t believe the trade. Natural gas prices are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average telling you that the trend is higher after we consolidated in the month March after the big run-up in early winter as prices seem to be resuming back up to the upside so play this market to the upside using my stop loss and proper risk management.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: OUTSTANDING

Fed Proof Your Portfolio

Gold prices had a volatile trading week basically finishing unchanged to settle around 1,298 in the June contract after having a tremendous reversal selling off down to 1,272 when the monthly unemployment number was released adding 280,000 jobs which is bullish the economy and bearish gold but then turned on a dime with the Ukrainian problems escalating sending gold finishing up $14 this Friday right near session highs as prices have been consolidating in recent weeks. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines in the gold market for quite some time as this market remains choppy and it might be bottoming at the current price levels as gold rallied $200 to start the year but now has given back over $100 so were at about the 50% retracement so if your bullish gold I would buy a futures contract at today’s price while placing my stop at the 10 day low which is also the 10 week low of 1,268 an ounce risking around $3,000 per contract. I’ve lived through many of these political escalations including one last August with Syria and they always seem to fizzle away so we will see if today’s rally will do the same but sit on the sidelines and see what develops. The one thing gold does have going for it is trading above its 20 and 100 day moving average which is telling you that the trend might be turning higher as prices could be bottoming out.
TREND: MIXED
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Why Are So Many Boomers Working Longer?

Silver futures are trading below their 20 and 100 day moving average as volatility has come back into this market in the last week as prices reversed sharply off of yesterday’s contract lows of 18.66 to go out this Friday afternoon at 19.47 an ounce and if you been reading any of my previous blogs for months I’ve been talking about the possibility of silver bottoming at the $19 level and if you have deep pockets and you’re a longer-term investor I’m recommending that you buy silver as I think prices are cheap. I am bullish silver not because of the Ukrainian problems but because of the fact that the commodity markets are in a bullish trend and silver will catch up eventually as this is a highly inflationary commodity with a lot of demand as silver is used in smart phones unlike gold which really has no purpose except for a flight to quality and jewelry. Prices reversed today because of the Ukrainian situation seems to be escalating and it sent prices sharply higher but the true breakout in this market is at 20.40 that’s where I really would be recommending to get long and if you are in a futures contract already I would be adding to my position if prices break that level as a spike bottom may have occurred in yesterday’s price action.
TREND: MIXED
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Here's our Critical Line in the Sand for Silver

Coffee futures settled last Friday at 207 while going out this afternoon in New York at 203 continuing its high volatility as prices are still trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average as the chart structure is starting to improve with the 10 day low currently standing at 194 which is about 1000 points away or $3,500 risk. As I’ve talked about in previous blogs coffee is a very large contract and should not be traded with a small trading account due to its high volatility as prices remain strong in my opinion so I’m sticking with my previous recommendation and just keep my stop at the 2 week low as will start to see some estimates on the Brazilian crop which should give us some short term price direction. Prices have basically stalled out in the low 200s in recent weeks as prices are still consolidating the giant move up we had earlier in the year as coffee prices are about 80% in the year 2014 as the drought in Brazil really took its toll so I remain bullish.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: IMPROVING


Want more....Silver, Corn, Sugar, Cocoa, Wheat....Just click here.


Thursday, May 1, 2014

World Money Analyst: Europe....Cliff Ahead?

By Dirk Steinhoff
When Kevin Brekke, managing editor [of World Money Analyst], contacted me last week, I knew it was time again to survey the investment landscape. This month, I will focus on Europe and its decoupled financial and real economy markets.

Globally, the last two years were marked by booming stock exchanges of developed markets, disappointing bond markets, and devastation across the precious metals markets.

Since June 2012, the EURO STOXX 50 Index, Europe’s leading blue chip index for the Eurozone, has advanced by approximately 50% and outperformed even the S&P 500 and the MSCI World indices.


Over the last six months, European stock exchanges have seen a surprising change of leadership: The major stock market indices of the “weaker” countries, like Portugal, Spain, and Italy, have outperformed those considered stronger, like Germany. One of the top performers was a country that was and still remains in “bankruptcy” mode: Greece.


The question at this point is: Can these outstanding European stock market performances continue?

In our search for an answer, let’s start with a closer look at the economic conditions within the European Union (EU), where approximately 2/3 of total “exports” (internal and external) of the EU-28 are traded. And then let’s have a look at the economic setting of some major trading partners, such as the US and BRIC countries, which account for roughly 17% and 21%, respectively, of the external exports of the EU-28.
Although the EURO STOXX 50 Index has soared since June 2012, certain key measures of the underlying real economies paint a different picture.

To start, the GDP of the EU-28 is not really growing. In 2012, it contracted by 0.4% and grew by the smallest fraction of 0.1% in 2013. The GDP growth numbers for the countries in the euro area are even worse: -0.7% in 2012 and -0.4% in 2013. Whereas Germany’s GDP was up in 2013 by 0.5%, economic growth was down in Spain, Italy, and Greece by -1.2%, -1.8%, and -3.6%, respectively.

Real GDP Growth Rates 2002-2012
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
EU
1.3
1.5
2.6
2.2
3.4
3.2
0.4
-4.5
2.0
1.6
-0.4
Germany
0.0
-0.4
1.2
0.7
3.7
3.3
1.1
-5.1
4.0
3.3
0.7
Spain
2.7
3.1
3.3
3.6
4.1
3.5
0.9
-3.8
-0.2
0.1
-1.6
France
0.9
0.9
2.5
1.8
2.5
2.3
-0.1
-3.1
1.7
2.0
0.0
Italy
0.5
0.0
1.7
0.9
2.2
1.7
-1.2
-5.5
1.7
0.5
-2.5
Portugal
0.8
-0.9
1.6
0.8
1.4
2.4
0.0
-2.9
1.9
-1.3
-3.2



The EU unemployment rate stood at 10.2% at the beginning of 2012 and stands at 12.1% today. That the European Union is anything but a homogenous body that moves in unison can be seen in the following chart:


Where Germany has a current unemployment rate of 5.2% and a youth (under 25) unemployment rate of 7.5%, the numbers for other countries are worrisome: Current unemployment in Spain is 26.7%, and 12.7% in Italy, with youth unemployment in Spain at an incredible 57.7%, and 41.6% in Italy. And don’t forget Greece, which is mired in a historically unparalleled economic depression where unemployment is 28% and youth unemployment is a shocking 61.4%. Keep in mind that all of these numbers are those officially released by bureaucratic agencies. The real numbers, as we know, would likely be even worse.

Recent EU industrial production numbers have shown some slight improvement. Nevertheless, industrial production has only managed to recover to its 2004 level, and remains way below its 2007 heights (see next graph).

Source: Eurostat

So let’s see: a shrinking GDP, high and rising unemployment, and stagnant production significantly below 2007 levels. Those are not the rosy ingredients of a booming economy (as indicated by the stock exchanges) but of one that is struggling.

Europe is not in growth mode.

This verdict is further supported by the export numbers for trade between EU countries, known as internal trade. In 2001, internal trade accounted for 67.9% of EU exports. Today, this share is down to 62.7%. In an attempt to compensate for sluggish European growth, EU companies had to develop other export markets, such as the US or the emerging markets.

Will these markets help rescue European companies?

Time to Taper Expectations

With regards to the U.S., two important developments are worth mentioning. The first key development, which will have severe consequences for the global economy, was brought to my attention by my friend Felix Zulauf, an internationally well-known investor and regular member of the Barron’s Roundtable for more than 20 years. Running ever-increasing deficits in its trade and current accounts for almost 30 years, the US thus provided an enormous amount of stimulus for foreign exporters. Since 2006, however, the US trade deficit has shrunk, with deteriorating trade data for many nations as a consequence.


The second key development is that the newly appointed head of the US Federal Reserve system, Janet Yellen, seems determined to continue the taper of its bond buying program. This fundamental shift in monetary policy could be questioned if the economic numbers for the US begin to show significant weakness. But in the meantime, the reduction of economic stimulus in the US should lead to a reduced appetite for European export goods.

The emerging markets had been seen, not too long ago, as the investment opportunity and alternative to the fiscal and debt crisis-stricken countries of the developed world. Today, on a nearly daily basis, you hear bad news about the situation and developments in the emerging countries: swaying stock markets, plunging currencies, company bankruptcies, corruption scandals, and even riots.

The emerging markets are dealing with the unintended consequences of the Quantitative Easing (including liquidity easing and credit easing) programs in the West. The increased liquidity spilled over into the emerging markets in the hunt for yield. This flow of capital into the emerging markets lowered capital costs, inflated asset prices like stocks and real estate, and boosted commodity prices. All that, and more, sparked the emerging markets boom.

Now, this process has reversed. The natural conclusion to exaggerated credit-driven growth, the tapering of QE programs, the shrinking US trade deficit, and lower commodity prices has been an outflow of capital from emerging markets, triggering lower asset prices and exchange rates. The attempt of some countries to defend their currencies by raising interest rates will only exert further pressure on their economies.

With weaker emerging market economies and currencies, there will be no big added demand for European exports. Revenues and profits for EU companies (measured in euros) will fall.

When Trends Collide

So, over the last two years we had opposing trends—booming European stock markets and weak underlying real economies. This conflicting mix was mainly fostered by easy money that drove down interest rates to historic low levels. Plowing money into stocks, despite the poor fundamentals, was the only solution for most investors.

At their current elevated levels European stock markets appear vulnerable, and it seems reasonable to doubt that we will see a continuation of booming stock markets. Of course, such a decoupling can continue for some time, but the longer it continues, the closer we will get to a correction of this anomaly. Either the real economy catches up to meet runaway stock prices, or stock prices come down to meet the poor economic reality. Or some combination of the two.

Because of the economic facts that I discussed above, in my view, we may be seeing just the beginning of a stronger correction in stock prices.

Dirk Steinhoff is chief investment officer of portfolio management (international clients) at the BFI Capital Group. Prior to joining BFI in 2007, Mr Steinhoff acted as an independent asset manager for over 15 years. He successfully founded and built two companies in the realm of infrastructure and real estate management. Mr Steinhoff holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in civil engineering and business administration, magna cum laude, from the University of Technology in Berlin, Germany. 


Want to read more World Money Analyst articles like this? Subscribe to World Money Analyst today and learn how to look abroad for truly diverse opportunities that insulate you from domestic risk.
The article World Money Analyst: Europe: Cliff Ahead? was originally published at Mauldin Economics


Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!


Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Retirement Investing and Kitchen Table Economics

By Dennis Miller

What is it about retirement that causes confident, successful businessmen and women to lose that edge when they invest their own life savings? Many otherwise dynamic people become virtually impotent in the face of retirement investing. I have many friends who were very effective in business—folks who made sound decisions affecting how millions upon millions of dollars were spent. They would gather the facts, make a plan, and make the right call with confidence. Why was it so taxing for these same friends to manage their personal retirement accounts?


I’m a staunch advocate for gathering around the kitchen table to hash out problems and pass on life lessons. It’s where we gathered as a family to open our mail, pay the bills, and teach (and worry about) our children. I might even say that everything we needed to teach our family about economics, we taught at that kitchen table.

The secret is there is no secret. Investment gurus, stockbrokers, and talking heads like to use fancy words to dazzle. Many would have you believe their university or Wall Street pedigrees give them investing powers outside of your reach. Though many do have a little more knowledge or a little more experience, there is no need to be intimidated by the mystique.

Why? Because you already know most of what you need to know. The underlying principles for protecting and growing wealth during retirement are the same principles that allowed you to make and save that money in the first place.

When former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan would talk to Congress, many bright people would look at each other and think, “What the hell did he say?” If folks like Greenspan are so darn smart, why couldn’t they predict or prevent the Internet or real estate boom and bust? Why can’t they speak plainly? Don’t let anyone’s “elite” status overshadow your own common sense.

For the last few years, the Federal Reserve has been printing a 100 year supply of money annually. No one needs a PhD in economics to grasp the potential for high inflation. A little knowledge of history and a bit of common sense will tell you where we’re headed.

The key to using kitchen-table economics in retirement is to apply the same fact finding and research skills that made you successful in business. If you are uncomfortable making an investment decision, continue to educate yourself until you are. Of course, it’s sensible to take in input and ideas from experts. Just don’t get caught thinking they have any magic bullets.

If you ask four people to define “rich,” you would likely get four different answers. As we move into retirement, the definition tends to be more practical and realistic. “Rich” is enough money to live comfortably without countless hours of financial worry. It’s also a feeling of pride in the lifetime of work that built your nest egg and an appreciation for each and every trip you get around the sun.

How much do you have; how much do you need to earn to supplement your retirement income; and, how can you invest safely to reach that goal? Retirement investing is no more complicated than that. Simply put, it’s living within your means and protecting what you have.

If I could shout one piece of encouragement to retirees, it would be: Don’t let the fear of losing money immobilize you! Doing nothing can be just as dangerous as risking too much on a speculative or even downright foolish investment.

You may recall the old adage about the banker who never made a loan because he was afraid he might lose money. When the bank went out of business, he claimed it wasn’t his fault. After all, he never made a bad loan during his tenure.

To make your retirement money last, you have to take on some risk. There are, however, proven ways to limit that risk to manageable doses: sector, geographical, and political diversification, trailing stop losses—the list goes on. Good investors will lose money from time to time and learn from their mistakes. You just need to learn and make the right judgment call more often than not.

Don’t fret when others brag about how well they’re doing. Each year financial newsletters, mutual funds, and investment managers like to boast about how much money they’ve made their clients. Accountability is a good thing; we’re certainly proud of our own track record.

Though, when I see the list of top-performing funds ranked by the amount of annual return, my first questions are: How much did they risk to get there? Have they performed that well consistently? How much of those profits were eaten in fees?

Some mutual funds occasionally produce nice gains for their shareholders. I, however, would put my money on the well educated grandfather investing from his kitchen table in Iowa any day of the week. Why? A recent report indicated that 78% of all US domestic equity funds were outperformed by their benchmarks during the past three years. Large caps were worse, with 86% of falling short of their benchmarks.
Benchmarks are the indices in the sectors funds specialize in, respectively. In short, there are countless statistics indicating that you can invest just as well as a fund manager.

Those numbers should embolden you, not frighten you. I shared them to keep things in perspective. There is no magic wizardry, secret code, or special knowledge. All investors gather facts, make an evaluation, and then allocate some money based on what they think the future will bring. Those are skills that can be honed through education and experience by smart folks sitting at their kitchen tables or in their home offices.

I’m happy to report that the most frequent comment we receive is that our newsletter explains investments in plain English. There’s a reason for that: the investments well suited for a conservative investor’s retirement portfolio are not that complicated.

You can overcome retirement impotence. The best way to build your confidence is to learn ways to invest safely. We think teaching our premium subscribers about protective mechanisms like asset allocation, diversification, position limits, trailing stop losses, and internationalization is just as important as the individual picks in the Money Forever portfolio. If you’d like to learn more too, sign up for a no-risk trial subscription today by clicking here.

The article Kitchen Table Economics was originally published at Millers Money



How do you start trading crude oil? Right here with our "Intro to Crude Oil Video"....Just Click Here!


Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Obama’s Secret Pipeline

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

Isn’t it odd that an 800 mile pipeline that runs across environmentally sensitive land has been permitted without any mention in the media? Not a word about it from President Obama either.

Obama’s Secret Pipeline will be built over land that’s much more sensitive than that of the Keystone XL pipeline, which gets nothing but front page coverage. It will actually be 17% (six inches) larger in diameter than Keystone XL (36 inches) and it will transport natural gas, not oil.

Bill 138

The Senate of Alaska, the state in which the pipeline will be built, has just passed Bill 138, which makes the state a partner of three of the world’s largest oil companies, including one that has a horrible environmental track record on U.S. soil. In a nutshell, Alaska’s government is now partners with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips.

Only one more signature is required—Governor Sean Parnell’s—and it’s expected that he will sign the deal.

Not Even the US Government Wants US Dollars

For more than 100 years, the U.S. government has been receiving a royalty and tax revenue paid on the amount of oil or natural gas produced on American soil—a fee that is paid in U.S. dollars. Bill 138 has changed this forever.

Instead of Alaska receiving its dues in U.S. dollars, the state legislature has decreed through Bill 138 that the state will be paid “in kind.” In other words, the state will be getting its share of royalty and tax revenue in natural gas instead of U.S. dollars.

For the record, this is the first time ever that a US state has entered into a partnership like this. Essentially, Alaska is now a 25% equity partner with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips—which also requires the state to cough up cold, hard cash to build the entire project, including the 800 mile long, 42 inch wide pipeline.

Overall, the project is currently estimated to cost north of U.S. $50 billion, and we expect that when all the capital expense overruns and government inefficiencies are accounted for, the whole project will come in at more than U.S. $75 billion, using the total costs of similar projects for comparison.

But it will be 2015 before the final negotiations and the specific details of the partnership are agreed on, and remember, the devil is in the details. Who do you think will get the better end of the deal—a bunch of government bureaucrats with zero oil and gas experience, or the world’s top oil and gas producing companies? I know whom I’m betting on.

Which leads us to the point of this weekly missive.

And the Winner of Obama’s Secret Pipeline Is…

We already know which company will be building and operating Obama’s Secret Pipeline. The company I’m talking about has a lower price to earnings (P/E) ratio and a better yield than all of its peers. That’s good, because shareholders get paid a monthly yield for owning the stock while sitting back and watching the share price rise as well.

The Ultimate Oil Toll Booth

Think of it this way: this company charges the world’s most powerful oil and gas producers for every barrel of oil that passes through its “road network,” and now it can also charge the state of Alaska. Regardless of the price of oil or natural gas, this company gets its fee.

It’s a low-risk way to benefit from a high risk enterprise. This company is a current Buy in our Casey Energy Dividends portfolio. The Energy team is currently working hard on the upcoming issue, which will in detail cover the company that’s bound to gain big from Obama’s Secret Pipeline.

I know you haven’t heard about this pipeline yet, but you will soon enough.

That’s what we do here at the Energy Division of Casey Research: We’re the first to uncover breakthrough stories, and the first to uncover the best energy investment opportunities in the world. Doug Casey and I just got back from a whirlwind European tour, where we visited many of Europe’s most promising energy projects.

Here’s a picture of Doug Casey and me at Europe’s largest onshore drill site. This drill rig is 15 stories high and uses about 16,000 liters of diesel a day to turn the drills—which Doug and I are holding in this picture. As a side note, just the crank shaft that we’re holding costs U.S. $2 million—this rig is expensive and gigantic.


For you to get a better perspective on the true size of Europe’s largest onshore drill rig, here is a picture of Doug Casey and me with our friends Frank Holmes, Frank Giustra, and Matt Smith.

(From far left to right: Frank Holmes, Doug Casey, Marin Katusa, Frank Giustra, Matt Smith)

 

Do Your Portfolio a Favor and Try Out the Casey Energy Report

Doug Casey and I have done all the hard work for you. The current issue of the Casey Energy Report is a compilation of our Europe trip, including in-depth descriptions of our site visits and a new recommendation with a hugely promising project in an out-of-the-way European country that we personally checked out. The company is backed by mining giant Frank Giustra, and you bet he knows what he’s doing.

The Casey Energy Report comes with a free one year subscription to Casey Energy Dividends (a $79 value), including, of course, the upcoming May issue with our “Obama’s Secret Pipeline” pick.

There’s no risk in trying it: You have 90 days to find out if it’s right for you—love it or cancel for a full refund. You don’t have to travel 300+ days a year (as we do) to discover the best energy investments in the world—we do it for you.

If you don’t like the Casey Energy Report or don’t make any money within your first three months, just cancel within that time for a full, prompt refund. Even if you miss the cutoff, you can cancel anytime for a prorated refund on the unused part of your subscription. Click here to get started.

The article Obama’s Secret Pipeline was originally published at Casey Research



Sign up for todays Free Trading Webinar "Why HFT Firms Have a Competitive Advantage"....Just Click Here!

 


Monday, April 28, 2014

What High Frequency Trading Firms Don't Want You to Know

If you haven't heard about High Frequency Trading (HFT), now's the time to learn. HFT almost guarantees you'll lose as a day/short term trading individual, but John Carter shows you how you can beat the high frequency traders at their own game.

Mark your calendars for this Tuesday. It's in your best interest (if you're serious about your trading) to attend the webinar John's putting on THIS TUESDAY…

What HFT Firms Don't Want You to Know

You have two times to attend, and it's only happening TUESDAY. You'll learn....

   *   How to protect against High Frequency Traders
   *   How to take advantage of what HFT's are doing
   *   How to get in front of HFT's
   *   What is HFT's agenda?!
   *   Why HTF's impacts all traders (stock, options, futures, etc)

And of course a lot more.....Just click here to get you seat NOW

John Carter and The staff at the Crude Oil Trader


John's new video > HFT vs. John Carter: The Rise of the Machines


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Can Natural Gas Prices Move Higher From Here?

Natural gas futures in the June contract finished down 10 points this week to close around 4.65 as I’m recommending a long position in this contract placing my stop loss below the 10 day low which stands at 4.50 risking around 15 points or $1,500 per contract as the trend is still higher in my opinion as the risk reward situation is highly in your favor as we enter the demand season of summer. Natural gas prices have been in a bull market for quite some time and if you read some of my previous blogs several months back when prices were in the low $3 I was recommending if you have deep pockets and a longer term horizon to buy natural gas as prices were extremely cheap due to the fact of large supplies, however we had an extremely cold winter which reduced supplies dramatically and I do think natural gas prices will be sharply higher from today’s level in the next year as prices have bottomed out in my opinion. As a trader I focus on today and tomorrow only so when I can buy a natural gas contract and risk 1,500 I will take that trade even if I don’t believe the trade. Natural gas prices are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average telling you that the trend is higher after we consolidated in the month March after the big run up in early winter as prices seem to be resuming back up to the upside so play this market to the upside using my stop loss and proper risk management.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: OUTSTANDING

What High Frequency Trading Firms Don't Want You to Know

Gold futures in the June contract settled higher for the 2nd consecutive trading session cracking $1,300 an ounce after hitting new recent lows yesterday before the Ukrainian situation was stirred up once again this could be a problem for months to come as gold is held major support 1,280 currently I’m not recommending a position in this market as the trends choppy but keep an eye on this chart and wait for better chart structure to develop. Gold futures are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average telling you that the trend is higher despite the fact that we are right near recent lows as the market remains choppy but with the stock market rallying recently investors sought no reasonable gold but the money flow came back into this market as political tensions are heating up. If your bullish the gold market my recommendation would be to buy a futures contract at today’s price of 1,300 while placing your stop below yesterday’s low of 1,264 risking around $3600 but the true breakout will not occur until prices break the April 14th high of 1331.
TREND: SIDEWAYS
CHART STRUCTURE: POOR

Coffee futures in the July contract are ending the week on a sour note finishing down around 500 points to close around 209.70 while still trading above its 20 and 100 day moving average hitting new contract highs earlier in the week settling down about 500 points for the trading week in New York. I’ve been recommending a long position in coffee however the chart structure is very poor at this time and this trade is only for people with deep pockets and large trading accounts as its extremely volatile with high risk but I do believe that prices are headed higher and on any further weakness I would take advantage and get long the futures or a bull call option spread as the crop in central Brazil was absolutely devastated and I’m still hearing reports from some of my contacts down in Brazil that higher prices are coming as we will see an estimate on how many bags will actually be produced in the coming weeks and they are telling me that production is much lower than what currently is anticipated so only time will tell but I do believe prices are headed higher. TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: TERRIBLE

Today's commodity summary is brought to us by our trading partner Mike Seery....Click Here to Get More Calls on Commodities


Sign up for this weeks Free Trading Webinar....Just Click Here!


The Cost of Code Red

By John Mauldin


(It is especially important to read the opening quotes this week. They set up the theme in the proper context.)

 “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
– Ludwig von Mises
“No very deep knowledge of economics is usually needed for grasping the immediate effects of a measure; but the task of economics is to foretell the remoter effects, and so to allow us to avoid such acts as attempt to remedy a present ill by sowing the seeds of a much greater ill for the future.”
– Ludwig von Mises
“[Central banks are at] serious risk of exhausting the policy room for manoeuver over time.”
– Jaime Caruana, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements
“The gap between the models in the world of monetary policymaking is now wider than at any time since the 1930s.”
– Benjamin Friedman, William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy, Harvard

To listen to most of the heads of the world’s central banks, things are going along swimmingly. The dogmatic majority exude a great deal of confidence in their ability to manage their economies through whatever crisis may present itself. (Raghuram Rajan, the sober minded head of the Reserve Bank of India, is a notable exception.)

However, there is reason to believe that there have been major policy mistakes made by central banks – and will be more of them – that will lead to dislocations in the markets – all types of markets. And it’s not just the usual anti-central bank curmudgeon types (among whose number I have been counted, quite justifiably) who are worried. Sources within the central bank community are worried, too, which should give thoughtful observers of the market cause for concern.

Too often we as investors (and economists) are like the generals who are always fighting the last war. We look at bank balance sheets (except those of Europe and China), corporate balance sheets, sovereign bond spreads and yields, and say it isn’t likely that we will repeat this mistakes which led to 2008. And I smile and say, “You are absolutely right; we are not going to repeat those mistakes. We learned our lessons. Now we are going to make entirely new mistakes.” And while the root cause of the problems, then and now, may be the same – central bank policy – the outcome will be somewhat different. But a crisis by any other name will still be uncomfortable.

If you look at some of the recent statements from the Bank for International Settlements, you should come away with a view much more cautious than the optimistic one that is bandied about in the media today. In fact, to listen to the former chief economist of the BIS, we should all be quite worried.

I am of course referring to Bill White, who is one of my personal intellectual heroes. I hope to get to meet him someday. We have discussed some of his other papers, written in conjunction with the Dallas Federal Reserve, in past letters. He was clearly warning about imbalances and potential bubbles in 2007 and has generally been one of the most prescient observers of the global economy. The prestigious Swiss business newspaper Finanz und Wirtschaft did a far reaching interview with him a few weeks ago, and I’ve taken the liberty to excerpt pieces that I think are very important. The excerpts run a few pages, but this is really essential reading. (The article is by Mehr zum Thema, and you can read the full piece here.)

Speculative Bubbles

The headline for the interview is “I see speculative bubbles like in 2007.” As the interviewer rolls out the key questions, White warns of grave adverse effects of ultra loose monetary policy:

William White is worried. The former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements is highly skeptical of the ultra-loose monetary policy that most central banks are still pursuing. “It all feels like 2007, with equity markets overvalued and spreads in the bond markets extremely thin,” he warns.

Mr. White, all the major central banks have been running expansive monetary policies for more than five years now. Have you ever experienced anything like this?

The honest truth is no one has ever seen anything like this. Not even during the Great Depression in the Thirties has monetary policy been this loose. And if you look at the details of what these central banks are doing, it’s all very experimental. They are making it up as they go along. I am very worried about any kind of policies that have that nature.

But didn’t the extreme circumstances after the collapse of Lehman Brothers warrant these extreme measures?

Yes, absolutely. After Lehman, many markets just seized up. Central bankers rightly tried to maintain the basic functioning of the system. That was good crisis management. But in my career I have always distinguished between crisis prevention, crisis management, and crisis resolution. Today, the Fed still acts as if it was in crisis management. But we’re six years past that. They are essentially doing more than what they did right in the beginning. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Plus, the Fed has moved to a completely different motivation. From the attempt to get the markets going again, they suddenly and explicitly started to inflate asset prices again. The aim is to make people feel richer, make them spend more, and have it all trickle down to get the economy going again. Frankly, I don’t think it works, and I think this is extremely dangerous.

So, the first quantitative easing in November 2008 was warranted?

Absolutely.

But they should have stopped these kinds of policies long ago?

Yes. But here’s the problem. When you talk about crisis resolution, it’s about attacking the fundamental problems that got you into the trouble in the first place. And the fundamental problem we are still facing is excessive debt. Not excessive public debt, mind you, but excessive debt in the private and public sectors. To resolve that, you need restructurings and write-offs. That’s government policy, not central bank policy. Central banks can’t rescue insolvent institutions. All around the western world, and I include Japan, governments have resolutely failed to see that they bear the responsibility to deal with the underlying problems. With the ultraloose monetary policy, governments have no incentive to act. But if we don’t deal with this now, we will be in worse shape than before.

But wouldn’t large-scale debt write-offs hurt the banking sector again?

Absolutely. But you see, we have a lot of zombie companies and banks out there. That’s a particular worry in Europe, where the banking sector is just a continuous story of denial, denial and denial. With interest rates so low, banks just keep ever-greening everything, pretending all the money is still there. But the more you do that, the more you keep the zombies alive, they pull down the healthy parts of the economy. When you have made bad investments, and the money is gone, it’s much better to write it off and get fifty percent than to pretend it’s still there and end up getting nothing. So yes, we need more debt reduction and more recapitalization of the banking system. This is called facing up to reality.

Where do you see the most acute negative effects of this monetary policy?

The first thing I would worry about are asset prices. Every asset price you could think of is in very odd territory. Equity prices are extremely high if you at valuation measures such as Tobin’s Q or a Shiller-type normalized P/E. Risk-free bond rates are at enormously low levels, spreads are very low, you have all these funny things like covenant-lite loans again. It all looks and feels like 2007.

And frankly, I think it’s worse than 2007, because then it was a problem of the developed economies. But in the past five years, all the emerging economies have imported our ultra low policy rates and have seen their debt levels rise. The emerging economies have morphed from being a part of the solution to being a part of the problem.

Do you see outright bubbles in financial markets?

Yes, I do. Investors try to attribute the rising stock markets to good fundamentals. But I don’t buy that. People are caught up in the momentum of all the liquidity that is provided by the central banks. This is a liquidity-driven thing, not based on fundamentals.

So are we mostly seeing what the Fed has been doing since 1987 – provide liquidity and pump markets up again?

Absolutely. We just saw the last chapter of that long history. This is the last of a whole series of bubbles that have been blown. In the past, monetary policy has always succeeded in pulling up the economy. But each time, the Fed had to act more vigorously to achieve its results. So, logically, at a certain point, it won’t work anymore. Then we’ll be in big trouble. And we will have wasted many years in which we could have been following better policies that would have maintained growth in much more sustainable ways. Now, to make you feel better, I said the same in 1998, and I was way too early.

What about the moral hazard of all this?

The fact of the matter is that if you have had 25 years of central bank and government bailout whenever there was a problem, and the bankers come to appreciate that fact, then we are back in a world where the banks get all the profits, while the government socializes all the losses. Then it just gets worse and worse. So, in terms of curbing the financial system, my own sense is that all of the stuff that has been done until now, while very useful, Basel III and all that, is not going to be sufficient to deal with the moral hazard problem. I would have liked to see a return to limited banking, a return to private ownership, a return to people going to prison when they do bad things. Moral hazard is a real issue.

Do you have any indication that the Yellen Fed will be different than the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed?

Not really. The one person in the FOMC that was kicking up a real fuss about asset bubbles was Governor Jeremy Stein. Unfortunately, he has gone back to Harvard.

The markets seem to assume that the tapering will run very smoothly, though. Volatility, as measured by the Vix index, is low.

Don’t forget that the Vix was at [a] record low in 2007. All that liquidity raises the asset prices and lowers the cost of insurance. I see at least three possible scenarios how this will all work out. One is: Maybe all this monetary stuff will work perfectly. I don’t think this is likely, but I could be wrong. I have been wrong so many times before. So if it works, the long bond rates can go up slowly and smoothly, and the financial system will adapt nicely. But even against the backdrop of strengthening growth, we could still see a disorderly reaction in financial markets, which would then feed back to destroy the economic recovery.

How?

We are such a long way away from normal long term interest rates. Normal would be perhaps around four percent. Markets have a tendency to rush to the end point immediately. They overshoot. Keynes said in late Thirties that the long bond market could fluctuate at the wrong levels for decades. If fears of inflation suddenly re-appear, this can move interest rates quickly. Plus, there are other possible accidents. What about the fact that maybe most of the collateral you need for normal trading is all tied up now? What about the fact that the big investment dealers have got inventories that are 20 percent of what they were in 2007? When things start to move, the inventory for the market makers might not be there. That’s a particular worry in fields like corporate bonds, which can be quite illiquid to begin with. I’ve met so many people who are in the markets, thinking they are absolutely brilliantly smart, thinking they can get out in the right time. The problem is, they all think that. And when everyone races for the exit at the same time, we will have big problems. I’m not saying all of this will happen, but reasonable people should think about what could go wrong, even against a backdrop of faster growth.

And what is the third scenario?

The strengthening growth might be a mirage. And if it does not materialize, all those elevated prices will be way out of line of fundamentals.

Which of the major central banks runs the highest risk of something going seriously wrong?

At the moment what I am most worried about is Japan. I know there is an expression that the Japanese bond market is called the widowmaker. People have bet against it and lost money. The reason I worry now is that they are much further down the line even than the Americans. What is Abenomics really? As far as I see it, they print the money and tell people that there will be high inflation. But I don’t think it will work. The Japanese consumer will say prices are going up, but my wages won’t. Because they haven’t for years. So I am confronted with a real wage loss, and I have to hunker down. At the same time, financial markets might suddenly not want to hold Japanese Government Bonds anymore with a perspective of 2 percent inflation. This will end up being a double whammy, and Japan will just drop back into deflation. And now happens what Professor Peter Bernholz wrote in his latest book. Now we have a stagnating Japanese economy, tax revenues dropping like a stone, the deficit already at eight percent of GDP, debt at more than 200 percent and counting. I have no difficulty in seeing this thing tipping overnight into hyperinflation. If you go back into history, a lot of hyperinflations started with deflation.

Many people have warned of inflation in the past five years, but nothing has materialized. Isn’t the fear of inflation simply overblown?

One reason we don’t see inflation is because monetary policy is not working. The signals are not getting through. Consumers and corporates are not responding to the signals. We still have a disinflationary gap. There has been a huge increase in base money, but it has not translated into an increase in broader aggregates. And in Europe, the money supply is still shrinking. My worry is that at some point, people will look at this situation and lose confidence that stability will be maintained. If they do and they do start to fear inflation, that change in expectations can have very rapid effects.

More from the BIS

The Bank for International Settlements is known as the “central bankers’ central bank.” It hosts a meeting once a month for all the major central bankers to get together for an extravagant dinner and candid conversation. Surprisingly, there has been no tell-all book about these meetings by some retiring central banker. They take the code of “omertà” (embed) seriously.

Jaime Caruana, the General Manager of the BIS, recently stated that monetary institutions (central banks) are at “serious risk of exhausting the policy room for manoeuver over time.” He followed that statement with a very serious speech at the Harvard Kennedy School two weeks ago. Here is the abstract of the speech (emphasis mine):

This speech contrasts two explanatory views of what he characterizes as “the sluggish and uneven recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008-09.” One view points to a persistent shortfall of demand and the other to the specificities of a financial cycle-induced recession – the “shortfall of demand” vs. the “balance sheet” view. The speech summarizes each diagnosis [and]… then reviews evidence bearing on the two views and contrasts the policy prescriptions to be inferred from each view. The speech concludes that the balance sheet view provides a better overarching explanation of events. In terms of policy, the implication is that there has been too much emphasis since the crisis on stimulating demand and not enough on balance sheet repair and structural reforms to boost productivity. Looking forward, policy frameworks need to ensure that policies are more symmetrical over the financial cycle, so as to avoid the risks of entrenching instability and eventually running out of policy ammunition.

Coming from the head of the BIS, the statement I have highlighted is quite remarkable. He is basically saying (along with his predecessor, William White) that quantitative easing as it is currently practiced is highly problematical. We wasted the past five years by avoiding balance sheet repair and trying to stimulate demand. His analysis perfectly mirrors the one Jonathan Tepper and I laid out in our book Code Red.

How Does the Economy Adjust to Asset Purchases?

In 2011 the Bank of England gave us a paper outlining what they expected to be the consequences of quantitative easing. Note that in the chart below they predict exactly what we have seen. Real (inflation-adjusted) asset prices rise in the initial phase. Nominal demand rises slowly, and there is a lagging effect on real GDP. But note what happens when a central bank begins to flatten out its asset purchases or what is called “broad money” in the graph: real asset prices begin to fall rather precipitously, and consumer price levels rise. I must confess that I look at the graph and scratch my head and go, “I can understand why you might want the first phase, but what in the name of the wide, wide world of sports are you going to do for policy adjustment in the second phase?” Clearly the central bankers thought this QE thing was a good idea, but from my seat in the back of the plane it seems like they are expecting a rather bumpy ride at some point in the future.



Let’s go to the quote in the BoE paper that explains this graph (emphasis mine):

The overall effect of asset purchases on the macroeconomy can be broken down into two stages: an initial ‘impact’ phase and an ‘adjustment’ phase, during which the stimulus from asset purchases works through the economy, as illustrated in Chart 1. As discussed above, in the impact phase, asset purchases change the composition of the portfolios held by the private sector, increasing holdings of broad money and decreasing those of medium and long-term gilts. But because gilts [gilts is the English term for bonds] and money are imperfect substitutes, this creates an initial imbalance. As asset portfolios are rebalanced, asset prices are bid up until equilibrium in money and asset markets is restored. This is reinforced by the signalling channel and the other effects of asset purchases already discussed, which may also act to raise asset prices. Through lower borrowing costs and higher wealth, asset prices then raise demand, which acts to push up the consumer price level.

[Quick note: I think Lacy Hunt thoroughly devastated the notion that there is a wealth effect and that rising asset prices affect demand in last week’s Outside the Box. Lacy gives us the results of numerous studies which show the theory to be wrong. Nevertheless, many economists and central bankers cling to the wealth effect like shipwrecked sailors to a piece of wood on a stormy sea. Now back to the BoE.]

In the adjustment phase, rising consumer and asset prices raise the demand for money balances and the supply of long-term assets. So the initial imbalance in money and asset markets shrinks, and real asset prices begin to fall back. The boost to demand therefore diminishes and the price level continues to increase but by smaller amounts. The whole process continues until the price level has risen sufficiently to restore real money balances, real asset prices and real output to their equilibrium levels. Thus, from a position of deficient demand, asset purchases should accelerate the return of the economy to equilibrium.

This is the theory under which central banks of the world are operating. Look at this rather cool chart prepared by my team (and specifically Worth Wray). The Fed (with a few notable exceptions on the FOMC) has been openly concerned about deflationary trends. They are purposely trying to induce a higher target inflation. The problem is, the inflation is only showing up in stock prices – and not just in large cap equity markets but in all assets around the world that price off of the supposedly “risk-free” rate of return.



I hope you get the main idea, because understanding this dynamic is absolutely critical for navigating what the Chairman of the South African Reserve Bank, Gill Marcus, is calling the next phase of the global financial crisis. Every asset price (yes, even and especially in emerging markets) that has been driven higher by unnaturally low interest rates, quantitative easing, and forward guidance must eventually fall back to earth as real interest rates eventually normalize.

Trickle-Down Monetary Policy

For all intents and purposes we have adopted a trickle-down monetary policy, one which manifestly does not work and has served only to enrich financial institutions and the already wealthy. Now I admit that I benefit from that, but it’s a false type of enrichment, since it has come at the expense of the general economy, which is where true wealth is created. I would rather have my business and investments based on something more stably productive, thank you very much.

Monetary policies implemented by central banks around the world are beginning to diverge in a major way. And don’t look now, but that sort of divergence almost always spells disaster for all or part of the global economy. Which is why Indian Central Bank Governor Rajan is pounding the table for more coordinated policies. He can see what is going to happen to cross-border capital flows and doesn’t appreciate being caught in the middle of the field of fire with hardly more than a small pistol to defend himself. And the central banks even smaller than his are bringing only a knife to the gunfight.



The Fed & BoE Are Heading for the Exits…

In the United States, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen is clearly signaling her interest – if not outright intent – to turn the Fed’s steady $10 billion “tapering” of its $55 billion/month quantitative easing program into a more formal exit strategy. The Fed is still actively expanding its balance sheet, but by a smaller amount after every FOMC meeting (so far)… and global markets are already nervously anticipating any move to sell QE-era assets or explicitly raise rates. Just like China’s slowdown (which we have written about extensively), the Fed’s eventual exit will be a global event with major implications for the rest of the world. And US rate normalization could drastically disrupt cross-border real interest rate differentials and trigger the strongest wave of emerging-market balance of payments crises since the 1930s.

In the United Kingdom, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is carefully broadcasting his intent to hike rates before selling QE-era assets. According to his view, financial markets tend to respond rather mechanically to rate hikes, but unwinding the BoE’s bloated balance sheet could trigger a series of unintended and potentially destructive consequences. Delaying those asset sales indefinitely and leaning on rate targeting once more allows him to guide the BoE toward tightening without giving up the ability to rapidly reverse course if financial markets freeze. Then again, Carney may be making a massive, credibility-cracking mistake.



While the BoJ & ECB Are Just Getting Started

In Japan, Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda is resisting the equity market’s call for additional asset purchases as the Abe administration implements its national sales tax increase – precisely the same mistake that triggered Japan’s 1997 recession. As I have written repeatedly, Japan is the most leveraged government in the world, with a government debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 240%. Against the backdrop of a roughly $6 trillion economy, Japan needs to inflate away something like 150% to 200% of its current debt-to-GDP… that’s roughly $9 trillion to $12 trillion in today’s dollars.

Think about that for a moment. At some point I need to do a whole letter on this, but I seriously believe the Bank of Japan will print something on the order of $8 trillion (give or take) over the next six to ten years. In relative terms, this is the equivalent of the US Federal Reserve printing $32 trillion. To think this will have no impact on the world is simply to ignore how capital flows work. Japan is a seriously large economy with a seriously powerful central bank. This is not Greece or Argentina. This is going to do some damage.

I have no idea whether Japan’s BANG! moment is just around the corner or still several years off, but rest assured that Governor Kuroda and his colleagues at the Bank of Japan will respond to economic weakness with more… and more… and more easing over the coming years.

In the euro area, European Central Bank Chairman Mario Draghi – with unexpected support from his two voting colleagues from the German Bundesbank – is finally signaling that more quantitative easing may be on the way to lower painfully high exchange rates that constrain competitiveness and to raise worryingly low inflation rates that can precipitate a debt crisis by steepening debt-growth trajectories. This QE will be disguised under the rubric of fighting inflation, and all sorts of other euphemisms will be applied to it, but at the end of the day, Europe will have joined in an outright global currency war.

I don’t expect the Japanese and Europeans to engage in modest quantitative easing. Both central banks are getting ready to hit the panic button in response to too low inflation, steepening debt trajectories, and inconveniently strong exchange rates.

While the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan have collectively grown their balance sheets to roughly $9 trillion today, the next wave of asset purchases could more than double that balance in relatively quick order.

This is what I mean by Code Red: frantic pounding on the central bank panic button that invites tit-for-tat retaliation around the world and especially by emerging-market central banks, leading to a DOUBLING of the assets shown in the chart below and a race to the bottom, as the “guardians” of the world’s primary currencies become their executioners.



The opportunity for a significant policy mistake from a major central bank is higher today than ever. I share Bill White’s concern about Japan. I worry about China and seriously hope they can keep their deleveraging and rebalancing under control, although I doubt that many parts of the world are ready for a China that only grows at 3 to 4% for the next five years. That will cause a serious adjustment in many business and government models.

It is time to hit the send button, but let me close with the point that was made graphically in the Bank of England’s chart back in the middle of the letter. Once central bank asset purchases cease, the BoE expects real asset prices to fall… a lot. You will notice that there is no scale on the vertical axis and no timeline along the bottom of the chart. No one really knows the timing. My friend Doug Kass has an interview (subscribers only) in Barron’s this week, talking about how to handle what he sees as a bubble.

“Sell in May and go away” might be a very good adage to remember.

Amsterdam, Brussels, Geneva, San Diego, Rome, and Tuscany

I leave Tuesday night for Amsterdam to speak on Thursday afternoon for VBA Beleggingsprofessionals. There will be a debate-style format around the theme of “Are there any safe havens left in this volatile world?” I plan to write my letter from Amsterdam on Friday and then play tourist on Saturday in that delightful city full of wonderful museums. Then, if all goes well, I will rent a car and take a leisurely drive to Brussels through the countryside, something I have always wanted to do. I may try to get lost, at least for a few hours. Who knows what you might stumble on?

I will be speaking Monday night in Brussels for my good friend Geert Wellens of Econopolis Wealth Management before we fly to Geneva for another speech with his firm, and of course there will be the usual meetings with clients and friends. I find Geneva the most irrationally expensive city I travel to, and the current exchange rates don’t suggest I will find anything different this time.

I come back for a few days before heading to San Diego and my Strategic Investment Conference, cosponsored with Altegris. I have spent time with each of the speakers over the last few weeks, going over their topics, and I have to tell you, I am like a kid in a candy store, about as excited as I can get. This is going to be one incredible conference. You really want to make an effort to get there, but if you can’t, be sure to listen to the audio CDs.  You can get a discounted rate by purchasing prior to the conference.

The Dallas weather may be an analogy for the current economic environment. To look out my window is to see nothing but blue sky with puffy little clouds, and the temperature is perfect. My good friend and business partner Darrell Cain will be arriving in a little bit for a late lunch. We’ll go somewhere and sit outside and then move on to an early Dallas Mavericks game against the San Antonio Spurs. Contrary to expectations, the Mavs actually trounced the Spurs down in San Antonio last week. Of course the local fans would like to see that trend continue, but I would not encourage my readers to place any bets on the Mavericks’ winning the current playoff series.

I live only a few blocks from American Airlines Center, and so normally on such a beautiful day we would leisurely walk to the game. But the local weather aficionados are warning us that while we are at the game tornadoes and hail may appear, along with the attendant severe thunderstorms. That kind of thing can happen in Texas. Then again, it could all blow south of here. That sort of thing also happens.

So when I warn people of an impending potential central bank policy mistake, which would be the economic equivalent of tornadoes and hail storms, I also have to acknowledge that the whole thing could blow away and miss us entirely. I think someone once said that the role of economists is to make weathermen look good. Recently, 67 out of 67 economists said they expect interest rates to rise this year. We’ll review that prediction at the end of the year.

I’ve been interrupted while trying to finish this letter by daughter Tiffani, who is frantically trying to figure out how to buy tickets to get us to Italy (Tuscany) for the first part of June for a little vacation (along with a few friends who will be visiting). I am going to take advantage of being in Rome at the end of that trip, in order to spend a few days with my friend Christian Menegatti, the managing director of research for Roubini Global Economics. We will spend June 16-17  visiting with local businessmen, economists, central bankers, and politicians. Or that’s the plan. If you’d like to be part of that visit, drop me a note.

Finally I should note that my Canadian partners, Nicola Wealth Management, are opening a new office in Toronto. They will be having a special event there on May 8. If you’re in the area, you may want to check it out.

Have a great week, and make sure you take a little time to enjoy life. Avoid tornadoes.

Your hoping for a major upset analyst,
John Mauldin, Editor
Mauldin Economics





Have you watched this video yet? Trading against the High Frequency Traders....Just Click Here!

 


Stock & ETF Trading Signals