Pages

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The World According to Monty Guild...

Europe Will Be the Next Region to Create Liquidity for the World
 
The coming European bailout of Ireland and Portugal will have to include some method of quantitative easing (QE), or the printing of new money.  The European Central bank will claim they are not using QE, but using newly created money must be a part of the plan.  Often, when hiding their bond-buying, governments will use means to disguise their actions.  Clearly, very few professional investors have an appetite for Portuguese or Irish bonds unless they are put under some political pressure, so the buyer of last resort will be the governments and European Central Bank.
 
Europe’s banks own too much debt of the weak European periphery nations, including Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and others.  Even French debt is a potential danger.  The socialist model that much of Western Europe has followed for the last forty years is in question.  Europe will either have to discover a method to grow their economies much faster or cut their citizens’ expectations of social assistance.  In our opinion, many European countries will require debt restructuring and bailouts in coming months and years.  These bailouts will be done partially with QE, and/or partially with loans or purchases of European government bonds by China.
 
China has announced an interest and they will make the purchases to ensure continuing and strengthening trade (i.e., the consumption of Chinese products) in Europe for decades to come.  China’s plans for the long-term include their intention to have the world’s reserve currency and the world’s most powerful economy.
 
It is interesting that as Europe re-enters a QE program, in the U.S., both the left and the right are attacking the Federal Reserve’s QE program, which may have the effect of slowing liquidity creation in the U.S.
 
 
Inflation Is In the News Everywhere
 
In much of Asia and Latin America, inflation is rising.  Although it is not yet rising as rapidly in the developed world, it will soon arrive in the U.S. and Europe.  Why is this?  Consumer price reporting in developing Asia is actually done in a manner that reflects the cost of living of the consumer.  In most Asian countries about 30% of the cost of living index is food.
 
In the U.S. and some other developed countries, food and energy are not considered crucial; they are considered non-core costs.  This does not mean that food inflation is not impacting consumers’ budgets in the developed world—clearly, food prices are rising and consumers are very much aware.  It is only a matter of time until the politicians and bureaucrats who have been misstating and statistically understating the costs of living in the developed world will be called to account.  The public is not stupid, and they are becoming more informed with each passing day. 
 
We believe the inflationary outcome will create profits for those who hold gold, commodities, selected foreign and U.S. stocks, and selected foreign currencies.  The current period of price decline may be an opportune time to acquire these investments.  We still believe investors should avoid U.S. bonds.  Regular readers will remember our long-term concern about bonds.  Long-term bonds have been moving lower and municipal bonds in the U.S. suffered a substantial decline recently.  Those of you who own intermediate and long-term bonds including municipal bonds please heed our warning.
 
 
Imagine a Decades-Long Steeplechase
 
To describe the future of the world economy and the placement of the major nations within this economy, we imagine a long steeplechase horse race that will take a decade or two to complete.  Let us imagine a course with hedges and fences to jump, water hazards to negotiate, and other contenders using creative tactics and strategies to improve their position in a long, tiring, multi-year run. 
 
Countries enter the race to ultimately have their currency become the world reserve currency.  Reserve currency status brings responsibility, power, and the parent country of the world’s reserve currency may be afforded with an elevated standard of living as a result. 
 
The hedges and fences on the course might be the requirements for developing and maintaining a strong banking system, a strong military, and active commercial interests in many world markets, where the nation is both a seller of goods and services and a buyer of the goods and services of others.
 
The trainers and jockeys on every horse represent the administrations and/or parliaments that make the rules, laws, and plans for the country’s progress.  They make the final decisions on how to train and prepare for the race.  They must assess the condition of the track (the world economy) and the other horses (the competing nations).  Sometimes when they are replaced mid-race it causes the country to fall back, and sometimes it helps the horse pick up the pace. 
 
 
Rumors Have It That The Old Champ Has Been Unwilling To Undertake The Disciplined Training Necessary To Maintain The Crown 
 
China has heard the rumors and is getting in position to make its move on the leader.  The race’s current leader, the U.S. is showing signs of tiredness and is burdened by big budget and trade deficits.   Perhaps seeing the challenger gaining on them, voters, and therefore politicians have finally begun talking about these issues.  We have been discussing these issues for many years, and they are now finally being prominently mentioned in the U.S. news.
 
In the U.S. case, Congress cannot make up its mind about how to prepare.  They cannot decide whether they should train vigorously or perhaps take it easy and rely on their ability to employ sharp tactics during the race itself such as using their reserve currency status to change the rules once the race has begun.  Manipulating their currency is easier than the hard training it takes to stay fit. 
 
The diet and training regimen are keys to success.  In the U.S., Congress has to decide the proper diet for the economy, i.e. horse.  Will they over-feed the race horse with too much deficit spending, or will they starve it with high regulation and high taxes?  Will they under-train the horse and rely on government regulation and other tactics to hide a lack of competiveness?  Or will they train it too hard by creating excessive unsustainable growth, causing the horse to exhaust itself before the race is over?
 
 
The Race Is Still In Its Early Stages; Here’s How the Announcer’s Call May Sound
 
The U.S. is currently in the lead, and China, after giving up a nearly 60 year head start has been moving much faster in the last 20 years.  They have a lot of ground to make up but it is astonishing how rapidly they are moving.  They have passed Japan, Europe, and the other horses in the race.  As they approach the first jump of this very long course, it does look like it has become a two-horse-race.
 
Many wonder if the U.S. champion can make all of the jumps and hazards that this race will demand.  The U.S. is an experienced and durable competitor but may be tired or too poorly disciplined to cover the long course in a steady and reliable manner.
 
China appears to have a plan and has been preparing for a long race.  Spectators will have to wait and see as only time will tell.  China looks organized, consistent, and is approaching the race with a rational plan.  It has not catered to the many special interests.  Its team is a compact, strategically clear group of engineers that has thus far stayed focused on the national interests as they see them. 
 
By comparison, the U.S. team has many “cooks in the kitchen” (Congress) making and designing its plan.  Their slow process towards building political consensus in the U.S. leaves lots of room for many special interests to get their meal at the public trough, while the average citizen is often ignored.  For this race, the U.S. does not seem to have a plan.  The team’s execution is ad hoc and the horse is just going to have to read and react to the course and figure out how to run and jump without clear direction from the jockey.
 
As the lead horse, the U S. is still able to pull tricks on the competitors like lowering their currency…while criticizing others for not raising theirs.  This is a smoke screen and part of the on-track tactics that lack an ethical basis; but this is a ruthless race, and ethical conduct on the track is not the norm.
 
China is gaining fast, but the horse has one major problem that could hurt its chances.  The business environment underpinning the Chinese economy is rife with corruption and questionable business practices. 
 
The U.S. has one great advantage, the individual entrepreneurship and skill of the many business leaders and highly intelligent technological people in the U.S.  If they are allowed to compete, build businesses and innovate the way they have for decades, the U.S. can win this race.  If they are impeded by favoritism, special interests, and government intervention, it would appear the Chinese challenger has the inside track to victory.
 
 
Important Note—It Is The Actions That Count
 
Complaints about currency values, trade policies and the Federal Reserve are for domestic political consumption.  We should not pay too much attention to the talk.  It is the actions that count.  Let us see if the U.S. and Europe can take the actions necessary to compete in the future.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Friday Jazz

Joe Henderson is one of the finest tenor saxophone players in Jazz and I would like to offer a small tribute.
I was driving home this evening diggin Sirus Real Jazz when they played Henderson's Canyon Lady.
Very Fine.



Matt Taibbi on the mortgage foreclosure fiasco

The following is an excerpt from Matt Taibbi's latest missive to be published in Rolling Stone on 25th November.  Matt Taibbi, coined the phrase describing Goldman Sachs as the Great Vampire Squid.  He has a great wit and able to get his mind around some complex issues and lay them out in a clear and comprehensible manner.  He has a blog whereby you can find many of his articles.  He also has a new book Griftopia, which is on my reading list.
 "The foreclosure lawyers down in Jacksonville had warned me, but I was skeptical. They told me the state of Florida had created a special super-high-speed housing court with a specific mandate to rubber-stamp the legally dicey foreclosures by corporate mortgage pushers like Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase. This "rocket docket," as it is called in town, is presided over by retired judges who seem to have no clue about the insanely complex financial instruments they are ruling on — securitized mortgages and laby rinthine derivative deals of a type that didn't even exist when most of them were active members of the bench. Their stated mission isn't to decide right and wrong, but to clear cases and blast human beings out of their homes with ultimate velocity. They certainly have no incentive to penetrate the profound criminal mysteries of the great American mortgage bubble of the 2000s, perhaps the most complex Ponzi scheme in human history — an epic mountain range of corporate fraud in which Wall Street megabanks conspired first to collect huge numbers of subprime mortgages, then to unload them on unsuspecting third parties like pensions, trade unions and insurance companies (and, ultimately, you and me, as taxpayers) in the guise of AAA-rated investments. Selling lead as gold, shit as Chanel No. 5, was the essence of the booming international fraud scheme that created most all of these now-failing home mortgages.
Look: It's undeniable that many of the people facing foreclosure bear some responsibility for the crisis. Some borrowed beyond their means. Some even borrowed knowing they would never be able to pay off their debt, either hoping to flip their houses right away or taking on mortgages with low initial teaser rates without bothering to think of the future. The culture of take-for-yourself-now, let-someone-else-pay-later wasn't completely restricted to Wall Street. It penetrated all the way down to the individual consumer, who in some cases was a knowing accomplice in the bubble mess.
But many of these homeowners are just ordinary Joes who had no idea what they were getting into. Some were pushed into dangerous loans when they qualified for safe ones. Others were told not to worry about future jumps in interest rates because they could just refinance down the road, or discovered that the value of their homes had been overinflated by brokers looking to pad their commissions. And that's not even accounting for the fact that most of this credit wouldn't have been available in the first place without the Ponzi-like bubble scheme cooked up by Wall Street, about which the average home owner knew nothing — hell, even the average U.S. senator didn't know about it.
At worst, these ordinary homeowners were stupid or uninformed — while the banks that lent them the money are guilty of committing a baldfaced crime on a grand scale. These banks robbed investors and conned homeowners, blew themselves up chasing the fraud, then begged the taxpayers to bail them out. And bail them out we did: We ponied up billions to help Wells Fargo buy Wachovia, paid Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, and watched as the Fed opened up special facilities to buy up the assets in defective mortgage trusts at inflated prices. And after all that effort by the state to buy back these phony assets so the thieves could all stay in business and keep their bonuses, what did the banks do? They put their foot on the foreclosure gas pedal and stepped up the effort to kick people out of their homes as fast as possible, before the world caught on to how these loans were made in the first place.
Why don't the banks want us to see the paperwork on all these mortgages? Because the documents represent a death sentence for them. According to the rules of the mortgage trusts, a lender like Bank of America, which controls all the Countrywide loans, is required by law to buy back from investors every faulty loan the crooks at Countrywide ever issued. Think about what that would do to Bank of America's bottom line the next time you wonder why they're trying so hard to rush these loans into someone else's hands.
When you meet people who are losing their homes in this foreclosure crisis, they almost all have the same look of deep shame and anguish. Nowhere else on the planet is it such a crime to be down on your luck, even if you were put there by some of the world's richest banks, which continue to rake in record profits purely because they got a big fat handout from the government. That's why one banker CEO after another keeps going on TV to explain that despite their own deceptive loans and fraudulent paperwork, the real problem is these deadbeat homeowners who won't pay their fucking bills. And that's why most people in this country are so ready to buy that explanation. Because in America, it's far more shameful to owe money than it is to steal it."
Matt Taibbi - Courts Helping Screw Over Homeowners

Matt Taibbi's Old Blog

Matt Taibbi's New Blog

The Vampire Squid article

How can you not like a story with this opening line...

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
The Great American Bubble Machine

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Barry Ritholtz takedown of Warren Buffett

Dear Uncle Sucker . . .
By Barry Ritholtz - November 17th, 2010, 11:38AM
For many years, I’ve been a fan of Warren Buffett’s long term approach to value investing. Understanding the value of a company, regardless of its momentary stock price, is a great long term investing strategy.
But it pains me whenever I read commentary from Buffett that glosses over reality or is somehow self-serving. His OpEd in the NYT today – Pretty Good for Government Work – paints an artificially rosy picture of the Bailout, ignores the negatives, and omits his own financial interest in government actions.
What might he have written if Sir Warren was dosed with some sodium pentothal before he sat down to pen that “Thank you” letter? It might have gone something like this:
>
DEAR Uncle Sam Sucker,
I was about to send you a thank you note for bailing out the economy . . . but then some nice men dressed in Ninja outfits came in and shot me full of truth serum. That led me to make one more set of edits to my letter thanking you for saving the economy.
It also helped me recall some things I seemed to have forgotten in my other public pronunciations about the bailouts.
I suddenly recalled who it was who allowed the banks to run wild in the first place: You. Your behavior before, during and after the crisis was the epitome of a corrupt and irresponsible government. You rewarded incompetency, created moral hazard, punished the prudent, and engaged in the single biggest transfer of wealth from the citizenry of the United States to the Wall Street insiders who created the mess in the first place.
Kudos.
Before I get to the bailouts, I have to remind you that in:
• 1999, you passed the Financial Services Modernization Act. This repealed Glass-Steagall, the law that had successfully kept main street banking safely separated from Wall Street for seven decades. Even the 1987 market crash had no impact on Main Street credit availability, thanks to Glass-Steagall.
• 1997-2010, you allowed the Credit Rating Agencies to change their business model, from Investor pays to Underwriter pays — a business structure known as Payola. This change effectively allowed banks to purchase their AAA ratings, and was ignored by the SEC and other regulators.
• 2000, you passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. It allowed the shadow banking industry to develop without any oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, or the state insurance regulators. This led to rampant creation of credit-default swaps, CDOs, and other financial weapons of mass destruction — and the demise of AIG.
• 2001-04, the Fed, under Alan Greenspan, irresponsibly dropped fund rates to 1%. This set off an inflationary spiral in housing, commodities, and in most assets priced in dollars or credit.
• 1999-07, the Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned such standards as employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability.
• 2004, the SEC waived its leverage rules, allowing the 5 biggest Wall Street firms to go from 12 to 1 to 20, 30 and even 40 to 1. Ironically, this rule was called the Bear Stearns exemption.
These actions and rule changes were requested by the banking industry. Rather than behave as adult supervision, you indulged the reckless kiddies, looking the other way as they acted out. You were the grand enabler of the finance sector’s misbehavior. Hence, you helped create the mess by allowing the banking sector to run roughshod over decades of successful constraints. (Kudos again on that).

....there is more...follow the link to TBP...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/dear-uncle-sucker/comment-page-2/#comment-448784

Pretty Good for Government Work

Wes Schott Says:

…wow, well said, that almost rivals a Matt Taibbi takedown…sweet

Paper Dollar Inflation 1945 - 2010

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

James Grant - In Gold We Trust

Published: November 13, 2010

NY Times

BY disclosing a plan to conjure $600 billion to support the sagging economy, the Federal Reserve affirmed the interesting fact that dollars can be conjured. In the digital age, you don’t even need a printing press.
Related

This was on Nov. 3. A general uproar ensued, with the dollar exchange rate weakening and the price of gold surging. And when, last Monday, the president of the World Bank suggested, almost diffidently, that there might be a place for gold in today’s international monetary arrangements, you could hear a pin drop.

Let the economists gasp: The classical gold standard, the one that was in place from 1880 to 1914, is what the world needs now. In its utility, economy and elegance, there has never been a monetary system like it.

It was simplicity itself. National currencies were backed by gold. If you didn’t like the currency you could exchange it for shiny coins (money was “sound” if it rang when dropped on a counter). Borders were open and money was footloose. It went where it was treated well. In gold-standard countries, government budgets were mainly balanced. Central banks had the single public function of exchanging gold for paper or paper for gold. The public decided which it wanted.

“You can’t go back,” today’s central bankers are wont to protest, before adding, “And you shouldn’t, anyway.” They seem to forget that we are forever going back (and forth, too), because nothing about money is really new. “Quantitative easing,” a k a money-printing, is as old as the hills. Draftsmen of the United States Constitution, well recalling the overproduction of the Continental paper dollar, defined money as “coin.” “To coin money” and “regulate the value thereof” was a Congressional power they joined in the same constitutional phrase with that of fixing “the standard of weights and measures.” For most of the next 200 years, the dollar was, in fact, defined as a weight of metal. The pure paper era did not begin until 1971.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 — by coincidence, the final full year of the original gold standard. (Less functional variants followed in the 1920s and ’40s; no longer could just anybody demand gold for paper, or paper for gold.) At the outset, the Fed was a gold standard central bank. It could not have conjured money even if it had wanted to, as the value of the dollar was fixed under law as one 20.67th of an ounce of gold.

Neither was the Fed concerned with managing the national economy. Fast forward 65 years or so, to the late 1970s, and the Fed would have been unrecognizable to the men who voted it into existence. It was now held responsible for ensuring full employment and stable prices alike.

Today, the Fed’s hundreds of Ph.D.’s conduct research at the frontiers of economic science. “The Two-Period Rational Inattention Model: Accelerations and Analyses” is the title of one of the treatises the monetary scholars have recently produced. “Continuous Time Extraction of a Nonstationary Signal with Illustrations in Continuous Low-pass and Band-pass Filtering” is another. You can’t blame the learned authors for preferring the life they lead to the careers they would have under a true-blue gold standard. Rather than writing monographs for each other, they would be standing behind a counter exchanging paper for gold and vice versa.

If only they gave it some thought, though, the economists — nothing if not smart — would fairly jump at the chance for counter duty. For a convertible currency is a sophisticated, self-contained information system. By choosing to hold it, or instead the gold that stands behind it, the people tell the central bank if it has issued too much money or too little. It’s democracy in money, rather than mandarin rule.

Today, it’s the mandarins at the Federal Reserve who decide what interest rate to impose, and what volume of currency to conjure.

The Bank of England once had an unhappy experience with this method of operation. To fight the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century, Britain traded in its gold pound for a scrip, and the bank had to decide unilaterally how many pounds to print. Lacking the information encased in the gold standard, it printed too many. A great inflation bubbled.

Later, a parliamentary inquest determined that no institution should again be entrusted with such powers as the suspension of gold convertibility had dumped in the lap of those bank directors. They had meant well enough, the parliamentarians concluded, but even the most minute knowledge of the British economy, “combined with the profound science in all the principles of money and circulation,” would not enable anyone to circulate the exact amount of money needed for “the wants of trade.”

The same is true now at the Fed. The chairman, Ben Bernanke, and his minions have taken it upon themselves to decide that a lot more money should circulate. According to the Consumer Price Index, which is showing year-over-year gains of less than 1.5 percent, prices are essentially stable.

In the inflationary 1970s, people had prayed for exactly this. But the Fed today finds it unacceptable. We need more inflation, it insists (seeming not to remember that prices showed year-over-year declines for 12 consecutive months in 1954 and ’55 or that, in the first half of the 1960s, the Consumer Price Index never registered year-over-year gains of as much as 2 percent). This is why Mr. Bernanke has set out to materialize an additional $600 billion in the next eight months.
Related

The intended consequences of this intervention include lower interest rates, higher stock prices, a perkier Consumer Price Index and more hiring. The unintended consequences remain to be seen. A partial list of unwanted possibilities includes an overvalued stock market (followed by a crash), a collapsing dollar, an unscripted surge in consumer prices (followed by higher interest rates), a populist revolt against zero-percent savings rates and wall-to-wall European tourists on the sidewalks of Manhattan.

As for interest rates, they are already low enough to coax another cycle of imprudent lending and borrowing. It gives one pause that the Fed, with all its massed brain power, failed to anticipate even a little of the troubles of 2007-09.

At last week’s world economic summit meeting in South Korea, finance ministers and central bankers chewed over the perennial problem of “imbalances.” America consumes much more than it produces (and has done so over 25 consecutive years). Asia produces more than it consumes. Merchandise moves east across the Pacific; dollars fly west in payment. For Americans, the system could hardly be improved on, because the dollars do not remain in Asia. They rather obligingly fly eastward again in the shape of investments in United States government securities. It’s as if the money never left the 50 states.

So it is under the paper-dollar system that we Americans enjoy “deficits without tears,” in the words of the French economist Jacques Rueff. We could not have done so under the classical gold standard. Deficits then were ultimately settled in gold. We could not have printed it, but would have had to dig for it, or adjusted our economy to make ourselves more internationally competitive. Adjustments under the gold standard took place continuously and smoothly — not, like today, wrenchingly and at great intervals.

Gold is a metal made for monetary service. It is scarce (just 0.004 parts per million in the earth’s crust), pliable and easy on the eye. It has tended to hold its purchasing power over the years and centuries. You don’t consume it, as you do tin or copper. Somewhere, probably, in some coin or ingot, is the gold that adorned Cleopatra.

And because it is indestructible, no one year’s new production is of any great consequence in comparison with the store of above-ground metal. From 1900 to 2009, at much lower nominal gold prices than those prevailing today, the worldwide stock of gold grew at 1.5 percent a year, according to the United States Geological Survey and the World Gold Council.

The first time the United States abandoned the gold standard — to fight the Civil War — it took until 1879, 14 years after Appomattox, to again link the dollar to gold.

To reinstitute a modern gold standard today would take time, too. The United States would first have to call an international monetary conference. A chastened Ben Bernanke would have to announce that, in fact, he cannot see into the future and needs the information that the convertibility feature of a gold dollar would impart.

That humbling chore completed, the delegates could get down to the technical work of proposing a rate of exchange between gold and the dollar (probably it would be even higher than the current price of gold, the better to encourage new exploration and production).

Other countries, thunderstruck, would then have to follow suit. The main thing, Mr. Bernanke would emphasize, would be to create a monetary system that synchronizes national economies rather than driving them apart.

If the classical gold standard in its every Edwardian feature could not, after all, be teleported into the 21st century, there would be plenty of scope for adaptation and, perhaps, improvement. Let the author of “The Two-Period Rational Inattention Model: Accelerations and Analyses” have a crack at it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2