Archive - Sep 11, 2010 - Story

A recent guest post by Gonzalo Lira on Zero Hedge, providing a theoretical framework for the arrival of hyperinflation, went viral, generating over 75k views and over 1,000 comments, further confirming that the biggest and most confounding debate in all of finance is what will the final outcome of the Fed's market manipulative actions be: deflation, inflation or, and not really comparable, hyperinflation (which is a distinctly different phenomenon from either of the above). The post infuriated some hard core deflationists who continue to refuse to acknowledge the possibility that in its attempt to inspire inflation at all costs, the Fed may just push beyond the tipping point of monetary imprudence away from mere target 2-3% inflation, and create an outright debasement of the world's reserve currency. One among these was none other than Mish himself, who a week ago recorded a podcast on Global Edge with Eric Townsend and Michael Hampton (link here), in which his conclusion was that Hyperinflation is the endgame, "so it is unlikely." Of course, the very premise of this statement argues that even in a monetary collapse the Fed will retain control over the flow of money, which of course is unlikely, and thus makes us very skeptical that such a simplistic and solipsistic argument is enough to resolve the debate. Since one of the items covered in the Mish podcast was Lira's argument, it was only fair that Gonzalo himself should be heard. Here is the Gonzalo Lira podcast defending the "Hyperinflation" case.

It is no secret that both the household debt/income ratio, as well as the debt service ratio (interest expense as a % of disposable income) continue to be near all time high levels, albeit slightly lower than recent all time records. In fact, the debt service ratio has declined more in real terms than in nominal terms, making the argument that the consumer deleveraging process might not be as dramatic as some expect. Yet it is precisely when looking at the real, and not nominal, value of a projected debt service burden, that explains why consumers will continue to be faced with a crippling debt regime, why deleveraging will continue, and why the economy will be far weaker than the Fed expects for years to come. Goldman's Jan Hatzius, who continues to be more bearish on the future prospects for the economy than ever before, explains.

We are back to 2007 - at least such is the case if one reads recent Goldman pieces that try to sound optimistic, such as those by head strategist David Kostin. While all recent Goldman analyses on the economy are downright nasty, the only way to goalseek a favorable view is by going back in time to those lofty days of the summer of 2007 when the answer to everything, including a Baltic Dry index in the stratosphere and other sundry illusions was the decoupling theme, either of China, or of the entire developed world. In his latest weekly kickstart piece, David Kostin pushes precisely that. And while we do learn that the performance of the recently incepted trading strategies continues to disappoint ("Our low operating leverage trade (long / short ) was down 0.5% and our dividend growth trade (long / short SPX) was down 0.7%."), there is much hope... as long as investors have the mindset of the Norwegians who invest for infinity... or at least 2030. "Over the next two decades emerging equity market capitalization could increase substantially in absolute terms and overtake developed markets. Our Chief Asia-Pacific Equity Strategist Tim Moe and his colleagues just published a report that forecasts the changing landscape of emerging market equities through 2030 and explains why developed market asset managers need to own more EM equities." Alas, decoupling is and always will be a myth. And, no this time it is not different. Anyway, all the charts that are fit to print and then some in this weekly summary chart compendium.