Archive - Apr 2012

If central planners decide to circumvent the already manipulated bond market and enforce much lower interest rates by implementing forced loans, there would be a big uproar for some time in the market. However, the negative wealth effect on the private sector would be more foreseeable and stretched out over a longer period of time. This definitely would decrease uncertainty. In my opinion, this measure would actually help to break through the downward spiral and avoid the much more devastating course towards a restructuring event with its negative side effects.

Appropos Bernanke's razor's-edge tight-rope-walk fence-sitting as the not-too-cold-not-too-hot economy reduces the Fed's ability to do anything, Jeff Gundlach of Double Line provided a succinct explanation of the the 'uncomfortable position' the place-of-confusion Fed finds itself in. Simplifying the dilemma to: the Fed cannot raise rates as the dramatic implications for the huge debt load (and implictly the interest expense saving the budget deficit) of the US Government are untenable while at the same time inflation (in the things we need - not just want) is rising notably. However the new bond-king notes rather sarcastically, that the Fed can show that there is only modest inflation thanks to housing and wage growth (and herelies 'the biflation'). The old-school-Fed's efforts at pre-emptive strikes against inflation is simply not going to happen, he states, citing an "intentional attempt to suppress national income - an attempt to stop nominal GDP growing too much - simply won't be tolerated until inflation moves into the 4-5% category".

Update for those who don't see more easing - bad news:

BERNANKE SAYS FED PREPARED TO TAKE MORE BALANCE SHEET ACTIONS
BERNANKE SAYS `THOSE TOOLS REMAIN ON THE TABLE'

One hour ago, the Fed launched on a big stop hunt, sending gold first much lower, then much higher, even as it released no incremental data, but merely confirmed that with every other central bank still "easing" (by which we mean devaluing their currencies of course, most recently seen in India and Brazil, and shortly, in Japan and of course Europe, once again) it can delay injecting cash until after the president is reelected. So with everyone at least superficially pretending there may be a question about ultimate Fed strategy, Ben will take the podium shortly to answer Steve Liesman's and several other fawning 'journalists' questions on what the Fed sees for the future, which in turn will be driven by the just released revised Fed forecasts (see below). Our question is why does the Fed not sell one or more ad spots on its livestream? Each can sell for at least a few millions - the money could then be used to pay down the debt.

Debunking Bailout Myths

We know correlation is not causation, but... Black line is student loan debt; Orange line is AAPL total cash. 2+2 just may not equal 5 in this case.

In a wonderfully succinct clip, Professor Antony Davies addresses the oft-cited perspective that Government has a debt problem. While correct in fact, he examines the data and summarily notes that debt is caused by deficits leaving the question of what's to blame - too much spending or too little tax revenues? The dramatic rise in spending per-capita by the government is exponentially larger than the rise in price levels over the last few decades and while so much time is spent on Healthcare costs - even that pales in significance relative to the rise in Federal Government spending. The lesson, he notes, is that we don't have a debt problem, we don't even have a deficit problem, what we have is a spending problem - leaving a tax solution impotent. An interesting conclusion on the day when the Fed once again promises to keep rates low forever implicitly supporting a government budget via its low interest expense...

They may have a little more difficulty getting this now public record "purged" from the internets...

It appears that more even than the Fed, the market, being a perfectly insane reflexive device, saw the 0.1% knee-jerk drop in stocks, and took that as a far greater THE NEW QE™ catalyst than anything just released by the Fed's printer. Gold is now higher than before the FOMC statement and QE-favorites Energy and Financials are notably outperforming.

By now everyone is aware that when it comes to the Fed's "communication" with the public, there is a redacted layer which remains hidden for years, and which just happens to contain the jist of what the Fed truly sees... and then there is what is left for public consumption, such as the just released statement of pre-canned sentences and algo stimulating phrases. However, to get the full transcript of the thinking that went into the policy we have to wait until 2017. Today, courtesy of John Lohman, we fast forward five years for a word cloud of the transcript that backs today's FOMC statement. Enjoy the resulting time travel.

The initial knee-jerk response to a lack of Twist-extension or QE3 on the table was a notable drop in Gold prices, strength in the USD, Treasury yields rising (with 10Y popping back over 2%) and a big fat unch from stocks (and AAPL). The last 15 minutes have seen all of these markets pulling back from their abysses with 10Y now rallying back to unch from pre-Fed, the USD leaking back higher and Gold and Silver (testing below $30) pulling back off their lows. AAPL has leaked lower but the S&P 500 remains practically unchanged (though Energy and Financials are outperforming as Healthcare and Industraisl are underperforming) and VIX has dropped a little. EURUSD is now very slightly lower than pre-Fed. It seems the market would rather wait to look Ben in the eyes at the press-conference before really pulling any triggers.

The FOMC statement once again had a little for everyone but critically lacked the all-important- "we'll print now and to infinity". Key headlines from the statement, via Bloomberg:

• *FED SAYS ECONOMY `EXPANDING MODERATELY'
• *FED SAYS INFLATION `HAS PICKED UP SOMEWHAT' ON ENERGY
• *FED SAYS GROWTH TO STAY MODERATE, `THEN TO PICK UP GRADUALLY'
• *LACKER DISSENTS FROM FOMC DECISION
• *FED SEES `SIGNIFICANT DOWNSIDE RISKS'
• *FED SEES `EXCEPTIONALLY LOW' RATES AT LEAST THROUGH LATE 2014

Pre-Fed price levels:

ES 1382, IG 98.6bps, HY $95.58, 10Y 1.97%, Gold 1639, EUR 1.3200, AAPL 609.5

Immediate Reaction

10Y +3bps, Gold -$10, ES -1pt, EUR -15pips, AAPL -$0.5

Full Statement Redline...

Fading Shiller and why. 

At first we were quite impressed by the following major revenue and EPS beat by Boeing announced earlier today:

*BOEING 1Q EPS $1.22 ON 11C REDUCTION IN RESERVE, EST. 93C
*BOEING 1Q REV. $19.38B, EST. $18.31B :BA US

...until courtesy of Sean Corrigan we found out that Boeing is merely the latest company to discover what GM recently discovered as have so many now defunct other companies. That when in doubt - stuff.

Sampling several investment banks' opinions on what to expect out of today's FOMC decision in a few hours, one would be left with the impression that absolutely nothing will happen. Not surprisingly, this is what the official party line reps and warrants as well, as telegraphed by that faithful mouthpiece, Jon Hilsenrath. And yet if the Fed has finally understood that its role is only effective if it is surprising, this gives all us all the opportunity to not only doubt what the media and the sellside wants us to expect, but to naturally fade Goldman - one of the best trades in the past three years - who says: "We expect no clarity from Wednesday's FOMC statement and press conference on additional monetary easing. Fed officials will not close the door but are also unlikely to provide a clear hint of further action. Our forecast of additional easing hinges not on what Fed officials say this week, but on our expectation of continued weakness in the economic data." Of course it is possible that the Fed is merely staying true to its recent creed of being honest and transparent and telegraphing policy from miles away. And is thus forced until the market is actually driven by actual macro data instead of who buys how many gizmos using student loans. Or not. Because when in doubt, always ask i) what would Goldman Sachs sell and ii) what would PIMCO buy. The two are rarely both wrong at the same time.