Archive - Jul 24, 2010

I have written in the past about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and its destabilizing effect in the world’s most important energy region. But what if Israel strikes before Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are realized? Although given that Iran currently could have as many as 8,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by December (IAEA estimate), an Israeli strike now, as opposed to say 2003 when the secret program was first revealed, may not effectively shut down the decentralized program. Still, it could cause a frustrating delay in Iran’s timetable and, depending on the line the mullahs take immediately succeeding the attack, weaken the regime’s hold on a populace that is more educated, more worldly, more pro-Western and less easily cowed than others in the region as the green protests last year revealed. The (literally) billion dollar question of course for commodities traders is what will be the effect on the price of global energy in the immediate and longer dated aftermath of such a military strike? As with the current diplomatic stand-off today, much of that will depend on Tehran’s reaction. Here are three possible scenarios should we wake up to news of Israeli fighter-bombers winging away from Natanz, leaving a burning nuclear facility and a thousand questions in their jet wash behind them.

Occasionally, though, there arises a very different and far deeper type of fear: the terrifying thought that the entity of profit – and, worse still, the very institution of capitalization on which the entire capitalist megamachine stands – might cease to exist. This latter fear is associated with systemic crisis – that is, with periods during which the very future of capitalism is put into question. It is what Hegel meant when he spoke of the bondsman’s “fear of death”.

The European stress test today was a very very sad buffoonery to witness. Firstly the worst case scenario is a 3% GDP contraction and a 20% equity market sell-off. Let's be frank if GDP contracted in Europe by 3% stocks would fall a bit more than 20%. More importantly, as 20% correction would leave the market clear by 33% above the lows of 2009. You would think the worst case scenario would be at least to revisit these lows. So basically the worst case scenario is not really credible as a "worst" case. Secondly the test focused strictly on the mark-to-market holdings of sovereign bonds. That is like sizing up an iceberg using only the tip. Spanish banks for example are ridden with housing inventories that are most likely marked at the 2006/2007 highs, and all that is happily excluded from the test, as well as accrual accounting books. The fact that they had to resort to truncating the scope so much given a relatively mild worst case assumption tells you how much head scratching must have gone on to make this look half way decent. It even felt like they invented some random unknown banks that failed just to make it legit. Solid work I must say, and on a summer Friday with no volume and syndicated desks using algos to push up the tape, the reception by the market looks quite grand on paper. The fact sadly is that no one cared today and there is not one reasonably informed investor out there who doesn't see this for what it is: a sad joke. Unfortunately when everybody gives up on the market and it melts up for no reason, I think we are really worst off than if we took the pain we deserve now and deal with the real state of affairs. This expensive extension of a broken system will only make it worse in the end. - Nic Lenoir

Just as Goldman's hope that the BP gusher's taking front page priority, especially in the aftermath of the rather amusing settlement between the firm and the SEC, was finally appearing to bear fruit as for the first time in over a year there was nothing relevant on the news front regarding the 200 West company, here comes Senator Chuck Grassley lobbing a grenade full of provocative and very much unanswered questions directed at the GAO, at Elizabeth Warren, and at Neil Barofsky that demand clear and prompt answers. We are also quite content that Blackrock and AIG once again manage to get themselves dirty.

The United States and the NATO allies are preparing to disengage and soon withdraw from Afghanistan and even the most vocal advocates of the "long-term commitment" do not anticipate more than five years of active US and NATO involvement. All the local key players — in Kabul, Islamabad, and countless tribal and localized foci of power — are cognizant and are already maneuvering and posturing to deal with the new reality. Irrespective of the political solution and/or compromise which will emerge in Kabul, the US is leaving behind a huge powder keg of global and regional significance with a short fuse burning profusely: namely, the impact of Afghanistan’s growing, expanding and thriving heroin economy. The issue at hand is not just the significant impact which the easily available and relatively cheap heroin has on the addiction rates in Russia, Europe, Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and the consequent public health, social stability and mortality-rate issues. In global terms, the key threat is the impact that the vast sums of drug money has on the long-term regional stability of vast tracks of Eurasia: namely, the funding of a myriad of “causes” ranging from jihadist terrorism and subversion to violent and destabilizing secessionism and separatism.

Yesterday the OMB released its Mid-Season Review of the US Budget. In keeping with the encroaching Beijingization of all data releases, the administration now sees yet another decline in the 2010 budget deficit, this time a reduction of $84 billion compared to the February forecast. According to the budget office, despite a $33 billion projected drop in revenues, outlays will see an even greater haircut courtesy of "lower unemployment and government program" spending. Yet even so, the 2010 budget deficit is expected to hit $1.47 trillion and $1.42 trillion in 2011. Of course, all these numbers are flawed and irrelevant: the confirmation - the OMB's assumption about jobs projections. To wit: "With continued healthy growth in 2011 and beyond, the unemployment rate is projected to fall, but it is not projected to fall below 6.0 percent until 2015." One problem with this "assumption": for this projection to actually happen, it means the US government needs to start creating 245 thousand jobs every month beginning in July through the end of 2005 (and we give the OMB the benefit of the doubt: if their assumption means 6% by the beginning of 2015, it implies a ridiculous job creation rate of 300,000 per month for 54 months straight). Alas, in attempting to present the rosiest picture possible, the budget office is now completely ignoring such useless things as logic and merely discrediting itself with increasingly more ridiculous "analyses."

We are happy to announce our latest joint collaboration, by launching a weekly chart update of the CFTC's Commitment of Traders report for key commodities courtesy of Libanman futures. The commodities presented include crude, nattie, heating oil, cocoa, coffee, sugar, gold, silver, platinum, copper, soybean, wheat, cotton, and OJ. As currencies are not includes in the summary, we will continue our ongoing observation in key currency trends, particularly as pertains to speculative sentiment in the key EUR, JPY and CHF pairs.

All the latest charts that are fit to spin, as always courtesy of AJ Cohen's one and only true successor, David "FV of market is always 50% higher" Kostin.