Timing & trends
Dr. Copper, the metal with a Ph.D. in Economics (used to describe copper as an economic leading indicator) appears to be telling us something different compared to the consensus on economic growth. Is copper wrong this time? Or is the consensus wrong?
I would probably lean towards copper as being correct here. The activity in the metal tends to be less emotional that what we see in equities and bonds. And, the copper market certainly is not plagued by political rhetoric which tends to influence what we hear from policymakers and politicians.
Perhaps the copper market is not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to China (which tends to get a lot of the benefit of the doubt from Bubblevision anchors and guests). Perhaps it is not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to fiscal and monetary authorities who have a reputation for dismal forecasting abilities, rightfully earned over the past 15 years.
Interestingly, copper, as a leading indicator, is a little at odds with the bond market. If the U.S. and global economics are more sluggish than expected, then bond yields might have some difficulty maintaining interim highs over the short-term (this would also decrease the chance of a significant Tapering of Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing).
So, if copper is right, and it does make a good case, it could be good for bonds but bad for equities where the rationale for recent highs is getting more tortured by the day. That said, this would only have ramifications for the short-term. Medium- to long-term, there are policy risks (botched exit from QE, another government shutdown, and another debt ceiling debate) that could change things yet again.
The opinions expressed in this report are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson GMP Limited or its affiliates. Assumptions, opinions and estimates constitute the author’s judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. We do not warrant the completeness or accuracy of this material, and it should not be relied upon as such. Before acting on any recommendation, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Richardson GMP Limited, Member Canadian Investor Protection Fund.
Richardson is a trade-mark of James Richardson & Sons, Limited. GMP is a registered trade-mark of GMP Securities L.P. Both used under license by Richardson GMP Limited.
Since everyone is talking about stock market crashes this week, let’s add some context here…
Since the invention of the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the turn of the last century, there have been eleven instances in which stocks declined by more than 35% from peak to trough, or what you would term a market crash. We’ll talk about how the Dow Jones Industrial Average behaved during these crashes as it is ouR oldest index; there was no such thing as the S&P 500 until 1957 and the Nasdaq didn’t come along until later.
The most benign of these eleven crashes took place between January of 2000 and October of 2002. It lasted for 999 days and lopped off 37.8% of the Dow’s price, ending that fall at around 7286. The damage in the tech-heavy Nasdaq was obviously much worse but, unless you had abandoned all of your blue chips to chase dot com stocks exclusively, it wasn’t the end of the world. It should be noted that the tech crash was augmented by the uncovering of massive frauds at both Enron and WorldCom and punctuated with the September 11th attacks.
….read more HERE
“We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.”
By ANDREW HUSZAR, in charge of the Federal Reserve’s $1.25 trillion agency mortgage-backed security purchase program (QE 1) in 2009-2010.
I can only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
Five years ago this month, on Black Friday, the Fed launched an unprecedented shopping spree. By that point in the financial crisis, Congress had already passed legislation, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to halt the U.S. banking system’s free fall. Beyond Wall Street, though, the economic pain was still soaring. In the last three months of 2008 alone, almost two million Americans would lose their jobs.
The Fed said it wanted to help—through a new program of massive bond purchases. There were secondary goals, but Chairman Ben Bernanke made clear that the Fed’s central motivation was to “affect credit conditions for households and businesses”: to drive down the cost of credit so that more Americans hurting from the tanking economy could use it to weather the downturn. For this reason, he originally called the initiative “credit easing.”
My part of the story began a few months later. Having been at the Fed for seven years, until early 2008, I was working on Wall Street in spring 2009 when I got an unexpected phone call. Would I come back to work on the Fed’s trading floor? The job: managing what was at the heart of QE’s bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months. Incredibly, the Fed was calling to ask if I wanted to quarterback the largest economic stimulus in U.S. history.
This was a dream job, but I hesitated. And it wasn’t just nervousness about taking on such responsibility. I had left the Fed out of frustration, having witnessed the institution deferring more and more to Wall Street. Independence is at the heart of any central bank’s credibility, and I had come to believe that the Fed’s independence was eroding. Senior Fed officials, though, were publicly acknowledging mistakes and several of those officials emphasized to me how committed they were to a major Wall Street revamp. I could also see that they desperately needed reinforcements. I took a leap of faith.
In its almost 100-year history, the Fed had never bought one mortgage bond. Now my program was buying so many each day through active, unscripted trading that we constantly risked driving bond prices too high and crashing global confidence in key financial markets. We were working feverishly to preserve the impression that the Fed knew what it was doing.
It wasn’t long before my old doubts resurfaced. Despite the Fed’s rhetoric, my program wasn’t helping to make credit any more accessible for the average American. The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn’t getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash.
From the trenches, several other Fed managers also began voicing the concern that QE wasn’t working as planned. Our warnings fell on deaf ears. In the past, Fed leaders—even if they ultimately erred—would have worried obsessively about the costs versus the benefits of any major initiative. Now the only obsession seemed to be with the newest survey of financial-market expectations or the latest in-person feedback from Wall Street’s leading bankers and hedge-fund managers. Sorry, U.S. taxpayer.
Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank’s bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn’t just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They’d also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed’s QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.
You’d think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later—after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector—the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision “clueless.”
That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street. Demoralized, I returned to the private sector.
Where are we today? The Fed keeps buying roughly $85 billion in bonds a month, chronically delaying so much as a minor QE taper. Over five years, its bond purchases have come to more than $4 trillion. Amazingly, in a supposedly free-market nation, QE has become the largest financial-markets intervention by any government in world history.
And the impact? Even by the Fed’s sunniest calculations, aggressive QE over five years has generated only a few percentage points of U.S. growth. By contrast, experts outside the Fed, such as Mohammed El Erian at the Pimco investment firm, suggest that the Fed may have created and spent over $4 trillion for a total return of as little as 0.25% of GDP (i.e., a mere $40 billion bump in U.S. economic output). Both of those estimates indicate that QE isn’t really working.
Unless you’re Wall Street. Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.
As for the rest of America, good luck. Because QE was relentlessly pumping money into the financial markets during the past five years, it killed the urgency for Washington to confront a real crisis: that of a structurally unsound U.S. economy. Yes, those financial markets have rallied spectacularly, breathing much-needed life back into 401(k)s, but for how long? Experts like Larry Fink at the BlackRock investment firm are suggesting that conditions are again “bubble-like.” Meanwhile, the country remains overly dependent on Wall Street to drive economic growth.
Even when acknowledging QE’s shortcomings, Chairman Bernanke argues that some action by the Fed is better than none (a position that his likely successor, Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, also embraces). The implication is that the Fed is dutifully compensating for the rest of Washington’s dysfunction. But the Fed is at the center of that dysfunction. Case in point: It has allowed QE to become Wall Street’s new “too big to fail” policy.
This column appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 11, 2013.”
“It will end badly” Look at China, its credit as a percent of the economy has increased by 50 percent in the last 4-1/2 years. This is the fastest credit growth you can imagine in the whole of Asia,”
“It will end badly and the question is whether we will have a minor economic crisis and then huge money printing or get into an inflationary spiral first,”
“Why are so many product prices in Singapore and Hong Kong more expensive than in the U.S.? It’s because when you have asset inflation and high property prices, shops have to pay higher rents, so they charge more for their products. So asset inflation can flow into consumer inflation,”