The Crude Oil Trader: financial

Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts

Monday, September 28, 2015

I love waterfalls. I’ve seen some of the world’s best, and they always have an impact. The big ones leave me awestruck at nature’s power. It was about 20 years ago that I did a boat trip on the upper Zambezi, ending at Victoria Falls. Such a placid river, full of game and hippopotamuses (and the occasional croc); and then you begin to hear the roar of the falls from miles away.

Unbelievably majestic. From there the Zambezi River turns into a whitewater rafting dream, offering numerous class 5 thrills. Of course, you wouldn’t want to run them without a serious professional at the helm. When you’re looking at an 8 foot high wall of water in front of you that you are going to have to go up (because it’s in the way); well, let’s just say it’s a rush.

If there were rapids like this in the United States, it’s doubtful professional outfits could get enough liability insurance to make a business of running them. In Zimbabwe we just signed a piece of paper. Our guides swore nobody had ever been lost – well, except for a few people who disobeyed the rules and leaped in the water in the calm sections because it was 100° out. That’s where the crocs are.

They promised we wouldn’t run into any in the rapids, which was good. More than a few of us got dumped in the water trying to run the rapids, but they had teams of kayakers who got you out quickly. The canyon below the falls is unbelievable, and below that is the even more impressive Bakota Gorge.

And yes, you then had to walk to the top of the canyon up a switchback trail to get home. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat, but I would spend at least three months training for the hike out. That was most definitely not in the full-disclosure-of-risks one-page piece of paper.

It would be hard to miss an analogy to the stock market. Everything’s peaceful and calm, you’re drinking some fabulous wine, eating some fantastic fresh game and fish, looking at all the beautiful animals as you drift easily with the current. Anybody can steer the boat in a bull market. Until the rapids hit and the bottom falls out.

As an aside, while the large waterfalls are majestic and awe-inspiring, the smaller ones are more hypnotic. I love the sound of falling water. I could listen for hours. The one place I don’t like to see waterfalls is on stock charts. Those leave me awestruck at the market’s power. They do have the power to focus the mind, however, especially when we own the shares that just went over the falls.

The US stock market is having the most turbulent year we’ve seen in a while. It’s not terrible by historical standards, but we have a full quarter to go. And next week it’ll be October, a month in which the stock market has run into trouble before. With all that in mind, this week I want to take a look at where stocks stand and maybe offer a thought or two about the events that could bring us to the next waterfall.

Not Niagara Falls Yet
Here is how the waterfall looks so far this year. Barely a 10% move peak to trough, and it lasted for just a few days. We see a lot of jostling, followed by the harrowing plunge in August, and then a partial (less than halfway) recovery. Where do we go from here?

Let’s start with the macro view. Back in July I showed you some research that I did with Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research. This was before the China sell-off accelerated into the headlines, so it is very interesting to read again in hindsight. (See “It’s Not Over Till the Fat Lady Goes on a P/E Diet”).

Our view is that we are still in a secular bear market, and have been since the 2000 Tech Wreck. You may find that view surprising, since the benchmarks have roughly tripled since the 2009 low. Our analysis looks at price/earnings ratios to identify when bull and bear markets begin or end. P/E multiples were close to 50 in year 2000. In order for that bear market to end, they needed to drop into the very low double digit or single-digit range, which has been the signal for the end of every long term secular bear cycle for over 100 years. That hasn’t happened during the intervening 15 years.

Can a secular bear market last 15 years? Yes. Some have lasted even longer, like 1966-1981 and 1901-1920. So this one isn’t unprecedented. And please note that the long-term secular cycles can have cyclical movements inside them. Again, we see secular cycles in terms of valuation and the shorter cyclical cycles in terms of price. (Unless this time is different) long-term secular bear market cycles will always end in a period of low valuations.

Currently, P/E ratios (or any other valuation metric you want to use) are not low enough to provide the boost that typically starts a new bull market. They were closer in 2009 than today, but have never dipped into the area that would mark the end of the bear market and the onset of the new bull. We’re still riding the same bear.

What’s taking so long? Our best guess is that stocks were so richly valued at the 2000 peak that it is taking the better part of a generation to work off that excess. In order for this bear to end – and the new bull cycle to begin – valuations need to tumble. That can happen only if prices drop considerably or earnings rise without pulling prices higher.

Obviously, there can be many trading opportunities within a secular bull or bear cycle, but Ed’s research says we have three long-term options from here.

If P/E ratios decline toward 10 or below, we will be near the end of this secular bear. A new bull cycle should follow.
If P/E ratios stay near where they are, we will be in what Ed calls “secular hibernation.” This would mean a lot of sideways price movement, with dividends having to deliver the lion’s share of stock market returns.
If P/E/ ratios rise further, we will go back into the kind of “secular bubble” that created the Tech Wreck. I recall those years vividly, and I would rather not relive them.

Now, combine this market situation with what appears to be a global economic slowdown. China is a big factor, but not the only one. The entire developed world is in slow-growth mode. At some point it will likely dip into recession territory. Canada is already there. I don’t think they will be alone for long. Japan and Europe are weak.

I think the next true move to lower valuations will be a cyclical bear market combined with a recession. Can the stock market hold on to today’s valuations in a recession? Nothing is impossible, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, either. I can’t find an example of stock prices and valuations staying in place in the midst of a recession. Prices can fall slowly or they can fall fast, but I feel confident they will do one or the other.

Speaking of Bubbles
Our old friend Robert Shiller popped up last week in a Financial Times interview. Shiller is the father of CAPE, the cyclically adjusted price/earnings multiple, which looks back ten years to account for earnings cyclicality. He is also a Yale professor and a Nobel economics laureate.

Shiller’s CAPE has been saying for several years that stocks are seriously overvalued. In his FT interview, Shiller dropped the “B” word: It looks to me a bit like a bubble again, with essentially a tripling of stock prices since 2009 in just six years and at the same time people losing confidence in the valuation of the market.

When will the bubble burst? Shiller is less helpful there. He said the recent bout of volatility “shows that people are thinking something, worried thoughts. It suggests to me that many people are re-evaluating their exposure to the stock market. I’m not being very helpful about market timing, but I can easily see aftershocks coming.

Now, if you aren’t very confident about timing, it’s arguably better not to use words like bubble and aftershock. You can be sure the media and analysts will jump all over them, just as I’m doing right now.
In any case, Ed Easterling and Bob Shiller reach similar conclusions (though for different reasons). Neither sees a very bullish future, though both are unsure about timing. So when will we know the end is nigh? Sadly, we probably won’t, unless we begin to see signs that a recession is building in the United States.

Balloons in Search of Needles
As the old proverb goes, no one rings a bell at the top. The same applies at the bottom. Let’s imagine the stock market as a whole bunch of balloons. One or two can pop loudly and everyone will jump and then laugh it off. You now have deflated debris hanging from your string. Eventually, enough balloons will pop that the weight of the debris overwhelms the remaining balloons’ ability to keep the string aloft. Then your whole bunch falls down.

The last balloon to pop wasn’t any bigger or smaller than the others; it just happened to be last. In like manner, some kind of catalyst sets off every market collapse. It is usually something that would be survivable by itself. The plunge occurs because of all the previous balloons that bit the dust, but pundits and the media always like to point the finger at the most recent event.

So, if Easterling and Shiller are right, balloons are popping and making investors nervous, but there’s not enough damage yet to drag down the whole bundle. What are some candidates for the last balloon? A Chinese “hard landing” is probably the biggest, most obvious balloon right now. And actually, China is big enough for multiple balloons. Their stock market downturn produced one pop already. Beijing’s currency adjustment may have been another one.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Balloons in Search of Needles was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Friday, September 4, 2015

How to Make Sure the Government Can’t Freeze Your Bank Account

By Justin Spittler

If you wake up tomorrow and your bank account is frozen… what will you do? You probably remember when the financial crisis in Greece was dominating headlines a few weeks ago. For years, Greece spent more than it took in. This led to a financial crisis that looked like it might destroy Europe’s financial system.

The Greek government closed all banks to prevent people from withdrawing all their money and crashing the banking system. Greek citizens could only withdraw €60 ($67) of their own money each day from ATMs. European authorities eventually gave Greece a bailout... and the crisis dropped from the headlines.

But here’s something you probably haven’t heard from the mainstream media….

It’s now been two months and Greek people still can’t fully access their own cash.
Reuters reports:

Greek banks are set to keep broad cash controls in place for months, until fresh money arrives from Europe and with it a sweeping restructuring, officials believe. “Broad cash controls” means Greek banks are essentially frozen. Greek people can withdraw only €420 ($460) per week of their own money.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Why You Should Go to Africa Instead of College

By Doug Casey

Recently Doug Casey was a guest on the always excellent podcast, The Tom Woods Show. Tom and Doug talked about the enormous economic potential in Africa, Doug’s efforts to build a truly free market country, and better uses of your time and money than going to college.

It’s an exciting and informative conversation.

Tom Woods: What a pleasure and a delight it is to welcome back to the show Doug Casey. Doug is a libertarian economist, best selling financial author, international investor, entrepreneur, and the founder and chairman of Casey Research. Doug, welcome back to the show.

Doug Casey: Thanks, Tom. It is my pleasure.

Tom: You’ve been up to some interesting activity in Africa that I’d like to ask you about. Let’s start off by telling us what you’ve been busy doing there.

Doug: Well, the last two weeks, I’ve been visiting the Islamic Republic of Mauritania with a short side trip to Senegal. I’ve been pursuing my hobby, which is to propose to a backward country a plan for complete and total free marketization… including taking the country itself public on a major stock exchange and distributing most of the shares directly to the people who theoretically own the government assets. I felt like I had Maria Muldaur’s “Midnight at the Oasis” playing in the back of my mind the whole time I was there.

Tom: Suppose you got everything you wanted, what would the outcome look like?

Doug: Well, 100% of all government assets, land, state owned companies - everything - initially go into a corporation and we distribute the shares.

Let’s say, 70% pro-rata to every man, woman, and child in the country, so they don’t just theoretically own the government, now they actually do. 15% would be put it in trust for the next unborn generation to defuse that time bomb. 10% would be distributed to people who, let’s say, are of significant help to making this happen, and people who are important, whose rice bowls would be broken, and 5% to take public in major stock markets to raise some capital. Then we get rid of all duties, taxes, and regulations.

Dubai was absolutely nothing in 1980. You know what Dubai is now. If we go back further, in 1960, Hong Kong and Singapore both were very poor and look what has happened to them. So I think in today’s world if somebody is daring enough to want to do this, I think it could be of world historic importance. So I’m looking for the right guy.

Tom: I’d like to get a glimpse inside of a meeting like this. If you’re sitting down with the president, you’re sitting down with top officials, how do you make that case, especially when the response is going to be, “What’s in it for me”?

Doug: Well, that’s always the first question, of course. I start my presentation with three things I can do for you, Mr. President. It’s always a question of the benefit to the buyer. Number one, this plan will make you legitimately a multibillionaire. That always goes down very smoothly, because they know that doing what Mobutu and Mugabe did doesn’t work quite as well now as it did in the past. So it gets their attention.

Number two, the people will love you and treat you as the new George Washington. That sounds pretty good too. Half the time in these places most of the population wants to kill them. And number three, we will put you on the front cover of all the world’s magazines in a favorable light for the next decade. Now that sounds good, because these people, if they are even known to exist, are considered pariahs.

So they always listen to the rest of presentation. Of course then things start to go wrong… usually from people under the president. It’s the people under the president who are usually making the big money, not so much the president himself. So they are often the problem.

It always makes for a fun adventure and interesting cocktail party stories that I can tell and retell to people for hours. But it’s my hobby. It’s not an occupation. I haven’t made any money on it yet, although I always have a plan B when I go to these countries: look for mining concessions and so forth.

Tom: Suppose you had to do it all over again. Let’s say you turned 18 in 2015. Have conditions changed to the point where you would take a different path, and incidentally would you go to college?

Doug: I would definitely not go to college. Even then, I only did it because everybody from my socioeconomic class was going to college, so there was no thought involved on my part. It was just like going from eighth grade into high school. I counsel students against it today. College serves no useful purpose unless you want to learn a trade like doctoring or lawyering or you need a piece of paper to practice a particular occupation, or there is a formal discipline, like a hard science or engineering.

You will pick up lots of bad ideas. You will spend a huge amount of money, get yourself under a huge financial rock that will take you years to dig yourself out from under. What I suggest people do instead is lay out what the most intelligent thing to do with that four years of time and probably $200,000 of capital. I like the idea of traveling. The place that I would put first and foremost on my travel list today for economic reasons is Africa. Go someplace where you can be a big fish in a small pond quickly.

Tom: Back in the ’50s and ’60s in the wake of decolonization in Africa, you had a bunch of Western educated semi-Marxist political leaders who were nationalizing property and confiscating assets from rich people and so on, you wouldn’t touch Africa with a ten foot pole. What has changed since then?

Doug: Well, politics always draws the worst kinds of people of course. Most of the presidents of Africa even today are ex-generals or ex-colonels or something like that. It has economically improved a lot. The population has exploded and it’s going to explode more in the years to come. It’s chaotic. But if you can bring order to chaos, that’s opportunity.

If you go to the Orient, there are a lot of rich, smart people there. You are not going to have much of a competitive advantage. That’s true to a lesser extent in South America too. Africa is actually the place, I think, you want to go.

Tom: Do you have any particular parts of Africa? I’ve heard good things about Botswana. Do you have any place in particular that attracts you?

Doug: Other than South Africa, I’d say Botswana is the most developed country in Southern Africa for sure. But where would I go now? Well, of course, the nice thing about Africa is that it’s divided basically into three parts, Anglophone Africa, Francophone Africa, and Lusophone Africa, and my French is still adequately conversational. I lived in France and Switzerland for a year during college. My Spanish is functional. The language thing is a consideration of course. But on the other hand, most of the educated people in most countries of the world speak English, which is the world’s lingua franca today.

Where would I go? There are around 50 countries in Africa. I like small, obscure ones. Maybe Ghana is too developed. Look at Benin or Togo or maybe the Ivory Coast. Mauritania, where I just was, is actually quite interesting. Guinea-Bissau, Guinea-Conakry, you’ve got lots of choices. Somebody should get on a plane and just take a look. Then when they get into a country, a capital city, which is always where the action happens, get on the telephone to local lawyers and real estate agents and businessmen to set up appointments and see who you can get along with. One thing will lead to another.

I wouldn’t go to Africa as a lifestyle choice. I would go there for economic reasons and for the adventure that it would yield. I’d say as a lifestyle choice, it comes down to South America or the Orient. I lived in the Orient for years and I loved it.

Tom: What about the language barrier?

Doug: Well, I lived in Hong Kong and when I was there it was much more English. Of course everybody in China is learning English today, everybody, everywhere that you basically would want to talk to. I’m not trying to be elitist but the educated people - put it that way - all speak English today as a second language. This is one of the things that will slow down your progress on learning the local language, is that they all want to speak English to you. So that’s a double edged sword… but it’s really an advantage. No, don’t worry about the language problem.

Tom: Well, I sure appreciate your time, Doug Casey. You are the International Man himself, and we are always grateful for your time.

Doug: Well, thank you Tom. It is a pleasure to talk to you under any circumstances.

Editor’s Note: International Man is all about helping you make the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunities around the world. A great way to get started is to check out Going Global 2015. Normally, this book retails for $99. But we believe this book is so important, especially right now, that we’ve arranged a way for US residents to get a free copy. Click here to secure your copy.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Riding the Energy Wave to the Future

By John Mauldin

“Formula for success: rise early, work hard, strike oil.” – J. Paul Getty

This week’s yuan devaluation was big news, but it’s really part of a much bigger saga. Events around the globe are combining to create huge economic change over the next few years. We are watching giant, multidimensional chess games played by some master players. Energy is the chessboard that connects all the players. What happens when the board changes shape in the middle of the game? If you don’t know the new energy landscape, you’ll have a hard time playing to a draw, much less winning.

Today I’ll tell you about some big shifts in the energy industry. These shifts are about as positive as can be, unless you need high oil prices to run your country. In the long run, these changes are bullish for the whole world, which I think this will surprise many of you. And though we’ve been used to thinking about energy and technology as two different facets of modern life, today they are inextricably linked.
When energy changes, everything else changes, too.

16 Candles

Thoughts from the Frontline is now entering its 16^th year of continuous weekly publication. I constantly meet readers who have been with me since the beginning – and even some who read an earlier print version of my letters. I put TFTF on the Internet in August 2000 as a free letter, starting with just a few thousand names, and was amazed at how rapidly it grew. It took just a few years for me to realize that this new thing called the Internet was the real deal, and I discontinued my print version. We now push the letter out to almost one million readers each week, and the letter is posted on dozens of websites.

I began to archive the letter in January 2001; and every issue – the good, the bad, and the sometimes very ugly – is still there in the archives, just as I wrote it. I will admit there are a few paragraphs, and maybe even a whole letter or two, that I would like to go back and expunge from the record. But I think it’s better just to let it all be what it is.

Investing in energy without the risk....Here's what our trading partner John Carter is doing.

I thank you for allowing me to come into your homes and offices each week. I consider it a privilege and honor to be able to offer you my research and thoughts. This letter has been free from the beginning, and my full intent is that it will always remain that way. Longtime readers know the topics can vary widely over the course of the year. I write about what I find interesting that week. I find that writing helps me focus my own thinking.

If you are reading this for the first time, you can go to www.mauldineconomics.com, subscribe by giving us your email address, and join my one million closest friends who get my letter each week. And if you’re a regular reader, why not give me a 16^th birthday present and suggest to your friends that they subscribe too! I also want to thank the staff and my partners, who make it possible for me to spend the bulk of my time thinking and writing. And traveling, of course. And now let’s think about energy.

The Cover Pic Indicator

Contrarian and value investors like to buy assets that are in distress, or at least “out of favor.” You don’t hear much about those assets at the time. That’s part of being distressed – everyone ignores you. So, following that logic, the last thing you want to buy is a stock or industry that appears on the cover page of popular financial publications. Commodity and energy bulls should take note of last weekend’s Barron’s cover.

“COMMODITIES: TIME TO BUY,” Barron’s practically screamed at its readers. In case you can’t read the fine print on the cover, it says, The harsh selloff in energy, gold, and other commodities is starting to look like capitulation. Opportunities in Exxon, Chevron, BHP, Goldcorp. Plus six funds and six ETFs to help build a position in this oversold sector.

I presume the photo is supposed to show the sun rising on an oil rig, not setting. The article quotes some very smart people who are bullish on commodities right now. Some energy stocks look like real bargains. Barron’s is simply repeating the market’s conventional wisdom: After a brutal decline, oil prices are stabilizing and should head higher as the global economy recovers.

That’s a perfectly defensible position – but I think it’s wrong.

It’s wrong because it misses a major shift in the way we produce energy. Many people think OPEC’s high oil and gas prices led to the US shale energy boom. That’s not right. The shale boom was born in a time of lower energy prices, and it was the result of new technologies that make recovering large quantities of oil and gas less expensive than ever.

I used to get the occasional letter from James Howard Kunstler, who would tell me that whatever letter I had just written was completely bass-ackwards, and how his books explained that we were going to run out of energy and then collapse. His books (Wikipedia lists about a dozen) and dozens of others warned us of Peak Oil. (For the record, James, a certain longtime editor on my staff made sure I got all your letters, reports, and more, as he is firmly in your camp! I kept smiling and saying that he was (and is) wrong; but Charley is a phenomenal editor, and you put up with a few quirks for brilliant editing that makes you look better. Besides, if the world does come to an end, I can wend my way to his survivalist farm and beg for a job and food, although I’m not exactly sure I’m ready to milk goats. Just for old time’s sake.)

I have written for years that Peak Oil is nonsense. Longtime readers know that I’m a believer in ever-accelerating technological transformation, but I have to admit I did not see the exponential transformation of the drilling business as it is currently unfolding. The changes are truly breathtaking and have gone largely unnoticed.

By now, you probably know about fracking, the technology where drillers pump liquids into a well to “fracture” the ground and release oil and gas deposits. It’s controversial in certain quarters, especially among those who hate anything carbon-related.

Fracking technology is moving forward like all other technologies: very fast. Newer techniques promise to reduce the side effects, at even lower operating costs. Furthermore, fracking is only the beginning of this revolution. The Manhattan Institute recently published an excellent (bordering on brilliant) report by Mark P. Mills, Shale 2.0: Technology and the Coming Big Data Revolution in America’s Shale Oil Fields. I highly recommend it.

Mills outlines the way the new technologies are turning this industry on its head. Shale production or “unconventional” production is really a completely new industry.

Here is a short quote: The price and availability of oil (and natural gas) are determined by three interlocking variables: politics, money, and technology. Hydrocarbons have existed in enormous quantities for millennia across the planet. Governments control land access and business freedoms. Access to capital and the nature of fiscal policy are also critical determinants of commerce, especially for capital-intensive industries. But were it not for technology, oil and natural gas would not flow, and the associated growth that these resources fuel would not materialize.

While the conventional and so-called unconventional (i.e., shale) oil industries display clear similarities in basic mechanics and operations – drills, pipes, and pumps – most of the conventional equipment, methods, and materials were not designed or optimized for the new techniques and challenges needed in shale production. By innovatively applying old and new technologies, shale operators propelled a stunningly fast gain in the productivity of shale rigs (Figure 4), with costs per rig stable or declining.

[Look at the above chart for a few moments; it’s truly staggering. In just seven years, the amount of oil per well in some shale plays has risen by a factor of 10! That is almost all due to new technologies that are increasingly coming online.]

Shale companies now produce more oil with two rigs than they did just a few years ago with three rigs, sometimes even spending less overall. At $55 per barrel, at least one of the big players in the Texas Eagle Ford shale reports a 70 percent financial rate of return. If world prices rise slightly, to $65 per barrel, some of the more efficient shale oil operators today would enjoy a higher rate of return than when oil stood at $95 per barrel in 2012.

Read that last paragraph again. Some shale operators can make good money at $55 a barrel. At $65, they can make higher returns than they did three years ago with oil at $95. I have friends here in Dallas who are raising money for wells that can do better than break even at $40 per barrel, although they think $60 is where the new normal will settle out. Texans are nothing if not optimistic.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Riding the Energy Wave to the Future was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Closing the Sausage Factory

By John Mauldin

“Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?”

– Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune

“Economies naturally grow. People innovate as they go through life. They also look around at what others are doing and adopt better practices or tools. They invest, accumulating financial, human and physical capital.

Something is deeply wrong if an economy is not growing, because it means these natural processes are impeded. That is why around the world, since the Dark Ages, lack of growth has been a signal of political oppression or instability. Absent such sickness, growth occurs.”

– Adam Posen, “Debate: The Case for Slower Growth”

Today’s letter will be shorter than usual, because I’m at Camp Kotok in Grand Lake Stream, Maine, where the first order of business today is trying to outfish my son (not likely to happen, this year). But I’ve been looking closer at productivity barriers, and I want to give you some points to ponder.

The New Normal?

Like many of you readers, I’m old enough to remember a time when 2.3% annual GDP growth was a disappointment. We always knew America could do better. Not anymore, apparently. Some people actually cheered last week’s first estimate for 2Q real GDP growth. It was 4.4% in nominal terms, but inflation brought the figure back down. While certain segments are growing like crazy, for the most part we are muddling along in a slow growing malaise. You might even call it “stagnant.”

I for one still think the United States can do more. We have a large population of intelligent people who want to build a solid future for their children. They’re willing to work hard to do it. If that’s not happening – and clearly it isn’t – some barrier must be standing in their way. What is this barrier to productivity and growth? There are actually several, but government red tape is one of the biggest. I thought about this after reading an excellent Holman Jenkins column in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Jenkins led me to an audio recording of an interesting discussion on “The Future of Freedom, Democracy and Prosperity,” conducted at a symposium held at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution last month.
Government research & development funding has fallen off considerably from its peak in the 1970s moonshot days. This holds back worker productivity. The federal government is doing too much to slow down business and not enough to boost it.

The three economists who spoke at Stanford all pointed to important productivity barriers emanating from Washington DC.....

One of the participants, Hoover economist John Cochrane, spoke of fears that America is drifting toward a “corporatist system” with diminished political freedom. Are rules knowable in advance so businesses can avoid becoming targets of enforcement actions? Is there a meaningful appeals process? Are permissions received in a timely fashion, or can bureaucrats arbitrarily decide your case by simply sitting on it?

The answer to these questions increasingly is “no.” Whatever the merits of 1,231 individual waivers issued under ObamaCare, a law implemented largely through waivers and exemptions is not law-like. In such a system, where even hairdressers and tour guides are subjected to arbitrary licensing requirements, all the advantages accrue to established, politically connected businesses.

The resources that businesses put into complying with government regulations is staggering. I have often envied people outside the highly regulated financial industry for their freedom to operate rationally. In my business we seem to spend half our time – and an ungodly fraction of our money – just maneuvering through the regulatory morass.

Intrusive federal regulations touch every part of the economy:

Energy and mining companies have to deal with environmental protection rules.
Drug companies and health care providers must satisfy the FDA and Medicare.
Cloud technology companies have to process FBI and NSA demands for user information.
Retailers and consumer product makers are required to abide by the fine print on millions of product labels.

I could go on, but you get the point. Anything you do attracts bureaucratic oversight now. We may laugh at “helicopter parents” hovering over their children at school, but we all have a helicopter government looking over our shoulders at work.

Before anyone calls me an anarchist, I think some government regulation is perfectly appropriate. We all want clean drinking water. Everyone appreciates knowing our cars meet crash survival standards. I’m glad FAA is keeping order in the skies.

The problem arises when agencies enforce confusing, contradictory, and excessive regulations and try to micromanage the nation’s businesses. Every business owner I know is glad to play by the rules. They just want to know what the rules say, and that is frequently very hard to do.

A few weeks ago, in “Productivity and Modern-Day Horse Manure,” I explained that growth is really quite simple: if we want GDP to grow, we need some combination of population growth and productivity growth.

The US population is growing, thanks mainly to immigration, but the effectiveness of the workforce is another matter. Baby Boomer retirements are rapidly removing productive assets from the economy. To offset that trend, we need to make younger workers more productive.The red tape that constantly spews out of Foggy Bottom is not helping matters.

Regulatory Capture

The red tape hurts the economy overall, but it does help certain parties. The largest players in any niche often “capture” their regulators. Then they use their influence to tilt enforcement away from themselves and toward smaller competitors.

Put simply, new regulations can be great for your business if you are already well established and have the resources to comply with government mandates. New entrants rarely have those resources. The resulting lack of competition boosts profits for the big players but hurts consumers. The competition that would normally lead to better, less expensive goods and services never happens.

Holman Jenkins makes another great point about how over regulation affects growth.

Another participant, Lee Ohanian, a UCLA economist affiliated with Hoover, drew the connection between the regulatory state and today’s depressed growth in labor productivity. From a long-term average of 2.5% a year, the rate has dropped to 0.7% in the current recovery. Labor productivity is what allows rising incomes. A related factor is a decline in business start ups. New businesses are the ones that bring new techniques to bear and create new jobs. Big, established companies, in contrast, tend to be net job shrinkers over time.

Recall our economic growth formula: population growth plus productivity growth. The US population grew at a peak rate of 1.4% in 1992, and growth has been trending down ever since. Now it is around 0.75% per year. Add that to 0.7% productivity growth, and you see why Jeb Bush’s 4% growth target will be so hard to hit.

Blame Flows Downhill

Business leaders love to complain about the bureaucrats who run Washington’s alphabet-soup agencies. I think the problem goes deeper. With only a few exceptions, the regulators I’ve met over the years have been competent professionals. They weren’t intentionally trying to hurt my business. Often the regulations confused them as much as they confused me.

The real blame, I think, starts on Capitol Hill. Our legislative process is a sausage factory. Congress passes vague, complicated laws riddled with exceptions for this and zero tolerance for that. The result is superficially attractive but a mess inside. People in the alphabet agencies then have to remove the sausage skin and make sense of the contents. This would be a tough job for anyone. I certainly don’t envy them.

Jenkins mentions Obamacare’s convoluted waivers and exemptions. Even its advocates admit the law is a crazy mess. But how and why did it get that way?

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Closing the Sausage Factory was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Thursday, July 9, 2015

It Could Never Happen Here

By Jared Dillian

I was watching the 6 o’clock news and saw images of closed banks in Greece and people lined up at ATMs. I’m sure you did, too.

This must seem surreal to most people because it seems so remote. But put yourself in these people’s shoes for a second. You have money in the bank. Suddenly you can’t get to it. After standing in long lines, you can only get 60 euros at a time, which isn’t going to last you very long.

What if you didn’t plan adequately and haven’t stashed away any cash? The banks will be closed for a while. What happens?

How do you pay for rent? Or food?
How does your employer pay you?
Do you go homeless? Or hungry?
Do you get really angry, take to the streets, blame someone or something (probably the wrong thing), break stuff, set things on fire?
Will Greece descend into anarchy?
It might.

Doomsday Preppers

Of course, not everyone in Greece is hurting. Many people saw this coming and took action. They took all their money out of the banks, put it under the mattress, or maybe stored it in a safe. Maybe they bought gold, or diamonds, or something else. These people aren’t standing in lines at ATMs. They aren’t going to go homeless or hungry.

But these people get a pretty bad rap—at least here in the US, where we call them “doomsday preppers.” Or “bunker monkeys.” Or “conspiracy theorists.” Or “gold bugs.” They take a beating. Jim Rickards tweeted the other day, “I’ll bet there a lot of Greeks saying, ‘I wish I had bought some gold.’" Truer words have never been spoken.

This week’s issue of The 10^th Man is not a gold promotion, but rather a broader discussion about how you can prepare for financial catastrophe. People keep fire extinguishers and first aid kits in their cars. They test their smoke alarms twice a year. They purchase flood insurance or, in my neighborhood, hurricane shutters.
Why would you do all these things but just leave your money in the bank and hope for the best?

I have studied all kinds of financial crises in all parts of the world, from depressions to hyperinflations. The thing they all have in common is that people who do not prepare get crushed. People who are not appropriately paranoid get crushed.

There is such a thing as being too paranoid (if everything you own is in gold and hard assets, you can miss out on some meaty returns in financial assets), but a little paranoia is healthy. For a few years, I had a pretty concrete escape plan, with assets, just in case.

In case of what?.....In case of anything.

No Sympathy Whatsoever

I don’t feel sorry for Greece. I don’t feel sorry for the people in the ATM lines. They have had years to prepare for this day. Most people in similar situations don’t have so much time. I’m shocked that the banks had any deposits left at all.

Probably what will happen is that the banks will require a Cyprus-like bail-in and the depositors will take a massive haircut, getting only a fraction of what they once owned. There are no wealthy Russians to go after. The burden will fall on ordinary Greeks.

It’s also hard to feel badly for a nation of people who have chosen to pursue this ruinous political path—people who cast 52% of their votes for communists or neo Nazis, and who have proven completely unable to take any responsibility for what has transpired.

Greece will probably respond to the failure of extreme left Syriza by electing even more extreme politicians. It seems likely that they will choose a strongman to “get things done.” I think people fail to understand how totalitarianism can happen in the 21^st century. Think of this as a YouTube tutorial video on the subject.

Full Faith and Credit

A financial crisis of similar magnitude will happen in the US someday. The only question is whether it will happen in 20 years or 50 or 100 or 200. But it is a virtual certainty. My only hope is that I won’t live long enough to see it.

Still, I know how to prepare for it. You know, in the old days before deposit insurance, people used to keep their money in five to ten different banks to diversify their counterparty risk. If a bank was perceived to be less creditworthy, the banknotes would trade at a discount.

I think that in the days of FDIC and various investor protections, we are lulled to sleep, believing that things really are safe when in reality, they are not. We were hours away from a complete and total financial collapse when the Reserve Primary fund broke the buck and there was a run on the money market mutual funds. We were that close.

After those dark days in 2008, I vowed that I’d never be in that position again.

You do sacrifice investment returns when you do this kind of stuff. Cash or gold or diamonds doesn’t yield anything. But then again, nowadays, neither do bonds. Don’t let the financial media shame you into thinking that taking basic emergency precautions to protect yourself financially is somehow “crazy.”

You can overdo it, though. You don’t need that many cans of pork and beans.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: “It Could Never Happen Here” was originally published at mauldineconomics.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Thursday, May 7, 2015

A Powerful Weapon of Financial Warfare--The US Treasury's Kiss of Death

By Nick Giambruno

It’s an amazingly powerful weapon that only the US government can wield—kicking anyone it doesn’t like out of the world’s US dollar based financial system.

It’s a weapon foreign banks fear. A sound institution can be rendered insolvent at the flip of a switch that the US government controls. It would be akin to an economic kiss of death. When applied to entire countries—such as the case with Iran—it’s like a nuclear attack on the country’s financial system.

That is because, thanks to the petrodollar regime, the US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, and that indirectly gives the US a chokehold on international trade.

For example, if a company in Italy wants to buy products made in India, the Indian seller probably will want to be paid in US dollars. So the company in Italy first needs to purchase those dollars on the foreign exchange market. But it can’t do so without involving a bank that is permitted to operate in the US. And no such bank will cooperate if it finds that the Italian company is on any of Washington’s bad-boy lists.

The US dollar may be just a facilitator for an international transaction unrelated to any product or service tied to the US, but it’s a facilitator most buyers and sellers in world markets want to use. Thus Uncle Sam’s ability to say “no dollars for you” gives it tremendous leverage to pressure other countries.

The BRICS countries have been trying to move toward a more multipolar international financial system, but it’s an arduous process. Any weakening of the US government’s ability to use the dollar as a stick to compel compliance is likely years away.

When the time comes, no country will care about losing access to the US financial system any more than it would worry today about being shut out of the peso-based Mexican financial system. But for a while yet, losing Uncle Sam’s blessing still can be an economic kiss of death, as the recent experience of Banca Privada d’Andorra shows.

Andorra, a Peculiar Country Without a Central Bank

The Principality of Andorra is a tiny jurisdiction sandwiched between Spain and France in the eastern Pyrenees mountains. It hasn’t joined the EU and thus is not burdened by every edict passed down in Brussels. However, as a matter of practice, the euro is in general use. Interestingly, the country does not have a central bank.

Andorra is a renowned offshore banking jurisdiction. Banking is the country’s second-biggest source of income, after tourism. Its five banks had made names for themselves by being particularly well capitalized, welcoming to nonresidents (even Americans), and willing to work with offshore companies and international trusts.

One Andorran bank that had been recommended prominently by others (but not by International Man) is Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA).

Recently BPA received the financial kiss of death from FinCEN, the US Treasury Department’s financial crimes bureau. FinCEN accused BPA of laundering money for individuals in Russia, China, and Venezuela—interestingly, all geopolitical rivals of the US.

Never mind that unlike murder, robbery and rape, money laundering is a victimless, make-believe crime invented by US politicians.

But let’s set that argument aside and assume that money laundering is indeed a real crime. While FinCEN seems to enjoy pointing the money laundering finger here and there, it never mentions that New York and London are among of the busiest money laundering centers in the world, which underscores the political, not criminal, nature of their accusations.

And that’s all it takes, a mere accusation from FinCEN to shatter the reputation of a foreign bank and the confidence of its depositors.

The foreign bank has little recourse. There is no adjudication to determine whether the accusation has any merit nor is there any opportunity for the bank to make a defense to stop the damage to its reputation.
And not even the most solvent foreign banks—such as BPA—are immune.

Shortly after FinCEN made its accusation public, BPA’s global correspondent accounts—which allow it to conduct international transactions—were closed. No other bank wants to risk Washington’s ire by doing business with a blacklisted institution. BPA was effectively banned from the international financial system.

This predictably led to an evaporation of confidence by BPA’s depositors. To prevent a run on the bank, the Andorran government took BPA under its administration and imposed a €2,500 per week withdrawal limit on depositors.

However, it’s not just BPA that is feeling the results of Washington’s displeasure. FinCEN’s accusation against BPA is sending a shockwave that is shaking Andorra to its core.

The ordeal has led S&P to downgrade Andorra’s credit rating, noting that “The risk profile of Andorra’s financial sector, which is large relative to the size of the domestic economy, has increased beyond our expectations.”

For comparison, BPA’s assets amount to €3 billion, and the Andorran government’s annual budget is only €400 million. There is no way the government could bail out BPA even if it wanted to.

The last time there was a banking crisis in a European country with an oversized financial sector, many depositors were blindsided with a bail-in and lost most, or in some cases, all of their money over €100,000.
While the damage to BPA’s customers appears to be contained for the moment, it remains to be seen whether Andorra turns into the next Cyprus.

BPA is hardly the only example of a US government attack on a foreign bank. In a similar fashion in 2013, the US effectively shut down Bank Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, which, like BPA, operated without branches in the US.

To appreciate the brazen overreach that has become routine for FinCEN, it helps to examine matters from an alternative perspective.

Imagine that China was the world’s dominant financial power instead of the US and it had the power to enforce its will and trample over the sovereignty of other countries. Imagine bureaucrats in Beijing having the power to effectively shut down any bank in the world. Imagine those same bureaucrats accusing BNY Mellon (Bank of New York is the oldest bank in the US) of breaking some Chinese financial law and cutting it off from the international financial system, causing a crisis of confidence and effectively shuttering it.

In a world of fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking, that is a power—a financial weapon—that the steward of the international financial system wields.

Currently, that steward is the US. It remains to be seen whether or not the BRICS will learn to be just as overbearing once their parallel international financial system is up and running.

In any case, the new system will give the world an alternative, and that will be a good thing.

But regardless of what the international financial system is going to look like, you should take action now to protect yourself from getting caught in the crossfire when financial weapons are going off.

One way to make sure your savings don’t go poof the next time some bureaucrat at FinCEN decides a bank did something that they didn’t like is to offshore your money into safe jurisdictions. And we've put together an in-depth video presentation to help you do just that. It's called, "Internationalizing Your Assets."

Our all-star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement - including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements.

This is a must watch video for any investor and it's completely free. Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

The Third and Final Transformation of Monetary Policy

By John Mauldin

The law of unintended consequences is becoming ever more prominent in the economic sphere, as the world becomes exponentially more complex with every passing year. Just as a network grows in complexity and value as the number of connections in that network grows, the global economy becomes more complex, interesting, and hard to manage as the number of individuals, businesses, governmental bodies, and other institutions swells, all of them interconnected by contracts and security instruments, as well as by financial and information flows.

It is hubris to presume, as current economic thinking does, that the entire economic world can be managed by manipulating one (albeit major) subset of that network without incurring unintended consequences for the other parts of the network. To be sure, unintended consequences can be positive or neutral or negative. This letter you are reading, which I’ve been writing for over 15 years and which reaches far more people than I would have ever dreamed possible, is partially the result of a serendipitous unintended consequence.

Energy sector earnings season is coming to a close, how did our traders bank their biggest profits ever?...Watch Free Video Here

But as every programmer knows, messing with a tiny bit of the code in a very complex program can have significant ramifications, perhaps to the point of crashing the program. I have a new Microsoft Surface Pro 3 tablet that I’m trying to get used to, but somehow my heretofore reliable Mozilla Firefox browser isn’t playing nice with this computer. I’m sure it’s a simple bug or incompatibility somewhere, but my team and I have not been able to isolate it.

However, that’s a relatively minor problem compared to the unintended consequences that spill from quantitative easing, ZIRP, and other central bank shenanigans. We have discussed the problem of how the Federal Reserve has pushed dollars on the rest of the world and is playing havoc with dollar inflows and outflows from emerging markets. More than one EM central banker is complaining aggressively.
My good friend Dr. Woody Brock makes the case that an unintended consequence of QE is that the Federal Reserve’s normal transmission of monetary policy through periodic changes in the fed funds rate has been vitiated. He contends that soon we will no longer care about the fed funds rate and will be focused on other sets of rates.

This is an important issue and one that is not well understood. Woody has given me permission to reproduce his quarterly profile. For Woody, this is actually a fairly short piece; but as usual with Woody’s work, you will probably want to read it twice.

Woody is one of the most brilliant economists I know, and I make a point of spending time with him as our schedules permit. We are making plans to get together at his Massachusetts retreat in August. He is restructuring his business in order to spend more time writing and less time traveling, and he intends to lower the price of his subscription. It will still be pricey for the average reader, but for funds and institutions it should be a staple. You can find his website at www.SEDinc.com or email him at SED@SEDinc.com.

Before we go to Woody’s letter, if you’re going to be at my conference this coming week, you’ve already made arrangements. I know a lot of people wanted to go but just couldn’t work it into their schedules. I won’t say it’s the next best thing to being there, but you can follow me on Twitter, where my team and I will be sending out real time tweets about the important ideas and concepts we are hearing, not just from the speeches but from all the conversations that spring up during the day and late into the evening. If you’re curious as to who will be there, here’s a page with the speakers. If you’re at the conference, look me up.

The Fed Funds Rate: R.I.P. ‒ The Third and Final Transformation of Monetary Policy
By Woody Brock, Ph.D.

Strategic Economic Decisions, Inc.
The policy announcements of the US Federal Reserve Board are dissected and analyzed more closely than any other global financial variable. Indeed, during the past thirty years, Fed‐Watching became a veritable industry, with all eyes on the funds rate. Within a few years, this term will rarely appear in print. For the Fed will now be targeting two new variables in place of the funds rate. One result is that forecasting Fed policy will be more demanding.

To make sense of this observation, a bit of history is in order. During the last nine years, US monetary policy has been transformed in three ways. To date, only the first two have been widely discussed and are now well understood. The third development is only now underway, and is not well understood at all. To review:

First, the Fed lowered its overnight Fed funds rate to essentially zero, not only during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008–2009, but throughout nearly six years of economic recovery thereafter. The average level of the funds rate at the current stage of recovery was about 4% during the past dozen business cycles. It was never 0% as it is in this cycle. In past essays, we have argued that this overutilization of “ultra‐easy monetary policy” reflected the failure of the government to utilize fiscal policy correctly (profitable infrastructure spending with a high jobs multiplier), and to introduce long‐overdue incentive structure reforms. It was thus left to monetary policy to pick up the pieces after the global crisis of 2008. This development was true in most other G-7 nations, not just in the US.

Second, the Fed inaugurated its policy of Quantitative Easing whereby it increased the size of its balance sheet five‐fold from $900 billion to $4,500 billion. Such an expansion would have been inconceivable to Fed watchers during the decades prior to the Global Financial Crisis. In the US, QE is now dormant, and the only remaining question (answered below) is how and when the Fed will shrink its bloated balance sheet back to more normal levels.

Third, the way in which the Fed conducts standard monetary policy (periodic changes in the funds rate) is currently undergoing a complete makeover. In particular, the traditional tool of changing the funds rate via Open Market operations carried out by the desk of the New York Fed no longer works. For as will be seen, the vast expansion of the size of its balance sheet (bank reserves in particular) has rendered traditional policy unworkable. From now on, therefore, the Fed will conduct monetary policy via two new tools that were not even on the drawing board of the Fed prior to 2008.

Summary: In this PROFILE, we explain in Part A why traditional (non‐QE) monetary policy has been vitiated by QE. In Parts B and C respectively, we discuss the two new tools that will be used in the future to conduct standard (non‐QE) monetary policy: what exactly are these tools, and how do they work? In Part D, we discuss why these new tools will not be required by the European Central Bank, which has a different institutional structure than the US Fed. Finally, in Part E, we turn to QE and discuss when and how the Fed will shrink its balance sheet back to a more traditional size in the years ahead.

In this write‐up, we largely rely on the remarks set forth in a recent paper by Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer, formerly chief economist of the IMF, Governor of the Central Bank of Israel, and professor of economics at MIT. We also benefitted from clarifications by Professor Benjamin Friedman at Harvard University.

Part A: So Long to Setting the Funds Rate via Open Market Operations

Prior to the financial crisis, bank reserve balances with the Fed averaged about $25 billion. With such a low level of reserves, a level controlled solely by the Fed, minor variations in the amount of reserves via Fed open market sales/purchases of securities sufficed to move the Fed funds rate up or down as desired. Analytically, the market for bank reserves (Fed funds) consisted of a demand curve for bank reserves reflecting the nation’s demand for loans, and a supply curve reflecting the supply of reserves by the Fed.

The so‐called Fed funds rate is the point of intersection of these two curves (the interest rate). If the Fed targeted, say a 2% funds rate, it achieved and maintained this rate by shifting the supply curve left or right by adding to/subtracting from the quantity of reserves. As the Fed was a true monopolist in the creation/extinction of reserves, it could always target and sustain any funds rate it chose.

These operations constituted “monetary policy” for many decades. But this is no longer the case, as was first made clear in a FOMC policy pronouncement of September 2014. To quote Dr. Fischer in his 2015 speech, “With the nearly $3 trillion in free bank reserves (up from pre‐crisis reserves averaging $25 billion), the traditional mechanism of adjustments in the quantity of reserve balances to achieve the desired level of the Federal funds rate may not be feasible or sufficiently predictable.” What new mechanisms will replace it? There are two.

Part B: The Use of Interest Rates Paid by the Fed on Free Bank Reserves

“Instead of the funds rate, we will use the rate of interest paid on excess reserves as our primary tool to move the Fed funds rate.” The ability of the Fed to pay banks an interest rate on their free reserves dates back to legislation of October 2008. This rate has been set at 0.25% during the past few years. (“Excess” or “free” bank reserves are defined as the arithmetic difference between total reserves and required reserves. Currently, as of March 30, required reserves were $142 billion, and total reserves were $2.79 trillion.)

The Logic: Whatever the level of the reserve interest rate that the Fed chooses, banks will have little if any incentives to lend to any private counterparty at a rate lower than the rate they can earn on their free reserve balances maintained at the Fed. The higher the reserve remuneration rate is, the greater will be the upward pressure on a whole range of short‐term rates.

Part C: The Use of the Reverse Repo Rate

“Because not all institutions have access to the excess reserves interest rate set by the Fed, we will also utilize an overnight reverse repurchase purchase agreement facility, as needed. In a reverse repo operation, eligible counterparties may invest funds with the Fed overnight at a given interest rate. The reverse repo counterparties include 106 money market funds, 22 broker‐dealers, 24 depository institutions, and 12 government‐sponsored enterprises, including several Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Farmer Mac.”

The Logic: Fischer continues: “This facility should encourage these institutions to be unwilling to lend to private counterparties in money markets at a rate below that offered on overnight reverse repos by the Fed. Indeed, testing to date suggests that reverse repo operations have generally been successful in establishing a soft floor for money market interest rates.”

Summary

Due to the explosion of the size of its balance sheet (bank reserves in particular), the Fed has been forced to abandon management of the Fed funds rate via traditional open market operations. This activity is now being replaced by two new policy tools, both of which are somewhat “softer” than the older tool. First, bank’s free reserves now earn an interest rate on excess bank reserves which is available to banks with access to the Fed’s reserve facility. Second, financial institutions such as money market funds lacking access to the reserve facility will be able to lodge funds overnight (not necessarily merely one night) at the Fed and receive the reverse repo rate offered by the Fed.

Part D: Irrelevance of these Developments to the European Central Bank

Interestingly, the European Central Bank does not need and will probably not implement the policy innovations now being implemented by the US Fed. The reason is that in Europe, lending is dominated by banks far more than here in the US. Moreover, most all European financial institutions can in effect deposit funds with the central bank. Finally, the ECB has long been able to vary the reserve remuneration (interest) rate that it pays for excess reserves. As a result, the ECB does not need to utilize the reverse repo rate tool that the Fed is introducing.

One final point should be made. Whereas Professor Fischer above asserts that the primary tool of the Fed will be variations in the reserve remuneration rate applicable to banks, other scholars believe it is the reverse repo rate that will be the primary tool of US monetary policy. This is partly because of the ongoing reduction of the role of banks in lending to private sector borrowers, a longstanding development that has accelerated with the new regulations imposed on banks since the Global Financial Crisis.

Part E: Will the Fed Shrink its Balance Sheet Back Down? If So, How?

Professor Fischer answers this point directly. Yes, the Fed will shrink its balance sheet, but not to the size of yesteryear. More specifically:

“With regard to balance sheet normalization, the FOMC has indicated that it does not anticipate outright sales of agency mortgage‐backed securities, and that it plans to normalize the size of the balance sheet primarily by ceasing reinvestment of principal payments on our existing securities holdings when the time comes... Cumulative repayments of principal on our existing securities holdings from now through the end of 2025 are projected to be $3.2 trillion. As a result, when the FOMC chooses to cease reinvestments of principal, the size of the balance sheet will naturally decline, with a corresponding reduction in reserve balances.”

Hopefully these remarks have helped clarify past and future changes in Fed policy—changes that amount to a thoroughgoing transformation of US monetary policy that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.
In the future, we suspect that the press will refer to the Fed’s targeting of the “reverse repo rate” in place of the Federal funds rate when analyzing prospective monetary policy.

San Diego, Raleigh, Atlanta, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont

I am excited about going to the 2015 Strategic Investment Conference on Tuesday. If for some reason you get there early on Wednesday, I intend to be in the gym at the hotel about 2:30, so come by and let’s work out together. Again, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter while I’m at the conference.

In the middle of May I go to Raleigh to speak for the Investment Institute and then on to Atlanta, where I’m on the board of Galectin Therapeutics. I’m going to New York the first week of June, then up to New Hampshire, where I will be speaking with a number of friends at a private retreat. I will then somehow get to Stowe, Vermont, to meet with my partners at Mauldin Economics. The rest of the summer looks pretty easy, with a few trips here and there.

Next week I intend to share my speech at the conference, or at least the gist of it. I have been thinking about it and working on it for some time. I had dinner this week with Mari Kooi, former fund manager who has become deeply imbedded with the Santa Fe Institute, an intellectual hotspot famous for its maverick scientists and interdisciplinary work on the science of complexity. Some of their people are working on something called complexity economics, which is an attempt to move on from the neoclassical view of general equilibrium.

If you wonder why the theories and models don’t work, it is because traditional economists are still busy trying to describe a vastly complex system by assuming away all the change except for that they believe they can control with the knobs they twist and pull. Their model of the economy resembles some vast Rube Goldberg machine where, if you put X money in here at Y rate, it will produce Z outcome over there.

Except that they don’t really know how the actions of the market will play out, since the market is made up of hundreds of millions of independent agents, all of whom change their behavior on the fly based on what the other agents are doing. Not to mention the effects of herding behavior and incentive structures and a dozen things beyond the ken or control of economists. There is only equilibrium in theory.

And that’s why it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict the future. The agents of change are multiplying and changing faster than we can keep up. But next week I will throw caution to the wind (unless I give up in despair), and we’ll see what my very cloudy crystal ball suggests lies in our future.

I am really looking forward to seeing old friends and making new ones at the conference. Have a great week.

Your trying to find simple in a complex world analyst,

John Mauldin

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: The Third and Final Transformation of Monetary Policy was originally published at mauldineconomics.com

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Central Banks, Credit Expansion, and the Importance of Being Impatient

By John Mauldin

We live in a time of unprecedented financial repression. As I have continued writing about this, I have become increasingly angry about the fact that central banks almost everywhere have decided to address the economic woes of the world by driving down the returns on the savings of those who can least afford it – retirees and pensioners.

This week’s Outside the Box, from my good friend Chris Whalen of Kroll Bond Rating Agency, goes farther and outlines how a low-interest-rate and massive QE environment is also destructive of other parts of the economy. Counterintuitively, the policies pursued by central banks are actually driving the deflationary environment rather than fighting it.

Make sure to watch todays featured video "The Whale Trade".....Just Click Here to Watch

This is a short but very powerful Outside the Box. And to further Chris’s point I want to share with you a graph that he sent me, from a later essay he wrote. It shows that the cost of funds for US banks has dropped over $100 billion since the financial crisis, but their net interest income is almost exactly the same. What changed? Banks are now paying you and me and businesses $100 billion less. The Fed’s interest rate policy has meant a great deal less income for US savers.

It is of the highest irony that Keynesians wanted to launch a QE policy that would increase the value of financial assets (like stocks), which they claimed would produce a wealth effect. I made fun of this policy some five years ago by calling it “trickle-down monetary policy.” Subsequent research has verified that there is no wealth effect from QE. Well, it did make our stocks go up, on the backs of savers. We’ve transferred interest income from savers into the stock market. We’ve made retirement far riskier for our older pensioners than it should be.

As Chris writes:

Indeed, in the present interest rate environment, to paraphrase John Dizard of the Financial Times, it has become mathematically impossible for fiduciaries [brokers, investment advisors and managers of pension funds and annuities] to meet the beneficiaries’ future investment return target needs through the prudent buying of securities.

Everywhere I go I talk with investment advisors and brokers who are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to create retirement portfolios that provide sufficient income without significantly moving out the risk curve at precisely the wrong time in their client’s lives. It is a conundrum that has been made for more difficult by Federal Reserve policy.

Economics Professor Larry Kotlikoff (Boston University) and our mutual friend syndicated financial columnist Scott Burns came by to visit me last week. I have talked with Larry on and off over the last few years, and Scott and I go back literally decades. A few years ago, Scott and Larry wrote a very good book called The Clash of Generations. Now, Larry has branched off on his own and written a really powerful manual on Social Security called Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.

I will admit I have not paid much attention to Social Security. I just assumed I should start mine when I’m 70, as so many columns I have read suggested. Larry and I recently spent an hour discussing the Social Security system (or perhaps it would be better to call it the Social Security Maze). Three thousand pages of law and tens of thousands of regulations and so many nuances and “gotchas” that it is really difficult to understand what might be best in your particular circumstances. Larry asked me questions for about two minutes and then proceeded to make me $40,000 over the next five years. It turns out I qualify for an obscure (at least to me) regulation that allows me to get some Social Security income for four years prior to turning 70 without affecting my post-70 benefits. There are scores of such obscure rules.

Larry says it is more often the case than not that he can sit down with somebody and make them more money than they thought they were going to get.

As one reviewer says:

This book is necessary for three reasons: Social Security is not intuitive, and sometimes makes no sense at all. Two, Americans act against their best interests, leaving all kinds of money on the table. Three, there is usually a “however” with Social Security rules. Worse, Social Security is now up to three million requests every week, but Congress keeps cutting back budget, staff, hours and whole offices. Combine that with the complexity factor, and the authors conclude you cannot trust what Social Security advises. Great.

If you or your parents are on Social Security or you are approaching “that age,” you really should get this book. Did you know that if you are divorced you can get a check for half of your former spouse’s Social Security income without affecting their income at all? But you can’t know whether this is a good strategy unless you look at other options.

How many retirees or those nearing retirement know about such Social Security options as file and suspend (apply for benefits and then don’t take them)? Or start stop start (start benefits, stop them, then restart them)? Or– just as important – when and how to use these techniques? Get What’s Yours covers the most frequent benefit scenarios faced by married retired couples, by divorced retirees, by widows and widowers, among others. It explains what to do if you’re a retired parent of dependent children, disabled, or an eligible beneficiary who continues to work, and how to plan wisely before retirement. It addresses the tax consequences of your choices, as well as the financial implications for other investments.

The book is written in Larry’s usual easy to read style, and you can jump to the sections that might be most relevant to you. The book is $11 on Kindle and under $15 at Amazon. This might be some of the better financial advice that you get from reading my letter: go get a copy of Get What’s Yours.

I can’t guarantee it will make you $40,000 in five minutes, but it can show you how to navigate the system. Larry also has a website with some inexpensive software to help you maximize your own Social Security. Seeing as how Social Security is the largest source of income for most US retirees, this is something everyone should pay attention to.

It is time to hit the send button. Quickly, we finalized the agenda for the 2015 Strategic Investment Conference. You can see it by clicking on the link. Then go ahead and register before the price goes up. This really is the best economic conference that I know of anywhere this year.

Your wondering how long they’ll pay me Social Security analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

Central Banks, Credit Expansion, and the Importance of Being Impatient

This research note is based on the presentation given by Christopher Whalen, Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) Senior Managing Director and Head of Research, at the Banque de France on Monday, March 23, 2015, for an event organized by the Global Interdependence Center (GIC) entitled “New Policies for the Post Crisis Era.” KBRA is pleased to be a sponsor of the GIC.

Summary

Investors are keenly focused on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to see whether the U.S. central bank is prepared to raise interest rates later this year – or next. The attention of the markets has been focused on a single word, “patience,” which has been a key indicator of whether the Fed is going to shift policy after nearly 15 years of maintaining extraordinarily low interest rates. This week, the Fed dropped the word “patience” from its written policy guidance, but KBRA does not believe that the rhetorical change will be meaningful to fixed income investors. We do not expect that the Fed will attempt to raise interest rates for the balance of 2015.

This long anticipated shift in policy guidance by the Fed comes even as interest rates in the EU are negative and the European Central Bank has begun to buy securities in open market operations mimicking those conducted by the FOMC over the past several years. Investors and markets need to appreciate that, regardless of what the FOMC decides this month or next, the global economy continues to suffer from the effects of the financial excesses of the 2000s.

The decision by the ECB to finally begin U.S. style “quantitative easing” (QE) almost eight years after the start of the subprime financial crisis in 2007 speaks directly to the failure of policy to address both the causes and the terrible effects of the financial crisis. Consider several points:

QE by the ECB must be seen in the context of a decade long period of abnormally low interest rates. U.S. interest rate policy has been essentially unchanged since 2001, when interest rates were cut following the 9/11 attack. The addition of QE 1-3 was an effort at further monetary stimulus beyond zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) meant to boost asset prices and thereby change investor tolerance for risk.
QE makes sense only from a Keynesian/socialist perspective, however, and ignores the long-term cost of low interest rate policies to individual investors and financial institutions. Indeed, in the present interest rate environment, to paraphrase John Dizard of the Financial Times, it has become mathematically impossible for fiduciaries to meet the beneficiaries’ future investment return target needs through the prudent buying of securities. (See John Dizard, “Embrace the contradictions of QE and sell all the good stuff,” Financial Times, March 14, 2015.)
The downside of QE in the U.S. and EU is that it does not address the core problems of hidden off- balance sheet debt that caused the massive “run on liquidity” in 2008. That is, banks and markets in the U.S. globally face tens of trillions of dollars in "off-balance sheet" debt that has not been resolved. The bad debt which is visible on the books of U.S. and EU banks is also a burden in the sense that bank managers know that it must eventually be resolved. Whether we talk of loans by German banks to Greece or home equity loans in the U.S. for homes that are underwater on the first mortgage, bad debt is a drag on economic growth.
Despite the fact that many of these debts are uncollectible, governments in the U.S. and EU refuse to restructure because doing so implies capital losses for banks and further expenses for cash- strapped governments. In effect, the Fed and ECB have decided to address the issue of debt by slowly confiscating value from investors via negative rates, this because the fiscal authorities in the respective industrial nations cannot or will not address the problem directly.
ZIRP and QE as practiced by the Fed and ECB are not boosting, but instead depressing, private sector economic activity. By using bank reserves to acquire government and agency securities, the FOMC has actually been retarding private economic growth, even while pushing up the prices of financial assets around the world.
ZIRP has reduced the cost of funds for the $15 trillion asset U.S. banking system from roughly half a trillion dollars annually to less than $50 billion in 2014. This decrease in the interest expense for banks comes directly out of the pockets of savers and financial institutions. While the Fed pays banks 25bp for their reserve deposits, the remaining spread earned on the Fed’s massive securities portfolio is transferred to the U.S. Treasury – a policy that does nothing to support credit creation or growth. The income taken from bond investors due to ZIRP and QE is far larger.
No matter how low interest rates go and how much debt central banks buy, the fact of financial repression where savers are penalized to advantage debtors has an overall deflationary impact on the global economy. Without a commensurate increase in national income, the elevated asset prices resulting from ZIRP and QE cannot be validated and sustained. Thus with the end of QE in the U.S. and the possibility of higher interest rates, global investors face the decline of valuations for both debt and equity securities.
In opposition to the intended goal of low interest rate and QE policies, we also have a regressive framework of regulations and higher bank capital requirements via Basel III and other policies that are actually limiting the leverage of the global financial system. The fact that banks cannot or will not lend to many parts of society because of harsh new financial regulations only exacerbates the impact of financial repression. Thus we take income from savers to advantage debtors, while limiting credit to society as a whole. Only large private corporations and government sponsored enterprises with access to equally large banks and global capital markets are able to function and grow in this environment.

So what is to be done? KBRA believes that the FOMC and policy makers in the U.S. and EU need to refocus their efforts on first addressing the issue of excessive debt and secondly rebalancing fiscal policies so as to boost private sector economic activity. Low or even negative interest rate policies which punish savers in order to pretend that bad debts are actually good are only making things worse and accelerate global deflation. Around the globe, nations from China to Brazil and Greece are all feeling the adverse effects of excessive debt and the related decline in commodity prices and overall economic activity. This decline, in turn, is being felt via lower prices for both commodities and traded goods – that is, deflation.

In the U.S., sectors such as housing and energy, the effects of weak consumer activity and oversupply are combining into a perfect storm of deflation. For example, The Atlanta Fed forecast for real GDP has been falling steadily as the underlying Blue Chip economic forecasts have also declined. The drop in capital expenditures related to oil and gas have resulted in a sharp decline in related economic activity and employment. Falling prices for oil and other key industrial commodities, weak private sector credit creation, falling transaction volumes in the U.S. housing sector, and other macroeconomic indicators all suggest that economic growth remains quite fragile.

To deal with this dangerous situation, the FOMC should move to gradually increase interest rates to restore cash flow to the financial system, following the famous dictum of Adam Smith that the “Great Wheel” of circulation is the means by which the flow of goods and services moves through the economy: “The great wheel of circulation is altogether different from the goods which are circulated by means of it. The revenue of the society consists altogether in those goods, and not in the wheel which circulates them” (Smith 1811: 202).

Increased regulation and a decrease in the effective leverage in many sectors of banking and commerce have contributed to a slowing of credit creation and economic activity overall. And most importantly, the issue of unresolved debt, on and off balance sheet, remains a dead weight retarding economic growth. For this reason, KBRA believes that investors ought to become impatient with policy makers and encourage new approaches to boosting economic growth.

Related Publications:

U.S. Real Estate Prices Show Signs of Rising Again (Published February 23, 2015)
GSE Litigation Affirms that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Sovereign Credits (Published February 19, 2015)
Swiss Francs & Global Debt Deflation (Published January 21, 2015)

Analytical Contact: Christopher Whalen, Senior Managing Director cwhalen@kbra.com, (646) 731-2366
Like Outside the Box?

Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: Central Banks, Credit Expansion, and the Importance of Being Impatient was originally published at mauldineconomics.com

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Header Link List

Monday, September 28, 2015

Friday, September 4, 2015

Friday, August 21, 2015

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Doomsday Preppers

No Sympathy Whatsoever

Full Faith and Credit

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Andorra, a Peculiar Country Without a Central Bank

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Central Banks, Credit Expansion, and the Importance of Being Impatient

Summary

Related Publications: