Archive - May 22, 2011 - Story

...The CFTC proposals stipulate the following: "Spot-month position limit levels set at 25% of deliverable supply for a given commodity, with a conditional spot month limit of five times that amount for entities with positions exclusively in cash-settled contracts What this essentially means is that anybody that has no intention of taking physical delivery of a commodity will NOT be allowed to build a position that is greater then 125% of the total deliverable supply while anybody looking to buy physical metal can only buy 25% of that same supply. They also threw in this little grenade: "Exemptions for bona fide hedging transactions (based on the Dodd-Frank Act’s new requirements for such transactions) and for positions that are established in good faith prior to the effective date of specific limits adopted pursuant to the proposed regulations." In other words, the existing short positions allegedly held by JPMorgan and HSBC amongst others about which the complaints were made, are unaffected by the new rules as they were already established. The WHAT?? Far from being the dog that didn’t bark, the CFTC have become the dog that held the door open for the burglars while they ransacked the house. Elsewhere though, there is another type of barking to be heard as the physical stocks of silver on the COMEX continue to dwindle - from 87,000,000 ounces in 2009 to a little over 32,000,000 ounces a mere 2 years later and sooner or later, if the volatility in silver continues, the answer to the CFTC’s investigation will be discovered not behind closed doors, but in the full glare of the spotlight as the amount of silver available to settle futures expiry gets dangerously close to a shortfall. The  more demand we see for physical silver from the likes of China, the more dangerous it gets to allow huge structural shorts to persist. Perhaps that’s why Commissioner Bart Chilton spoke this week in urgent tones about the need to address the issue of position limits? Silver now seems to have stabilized and, with first day notice for the July contract rapidly approaching, it looks as though the battle will once again be joined as silver continues to build a base between $33 and $35. One thing is for certain, the current trend simply CANNOT continue as the stocks of available silver in the COMEX warehouses continue to plummet regardless of fluctuations in the paper price. Sooner or later either the CFTC dog barks, or the market dog will - and THAT will be quite something to hear.

Christine Lagarde's chances of heading the IMF just took a another step back. Why? Because the firm whose alumni are about to be or already are in key posts at the Fed, the ECB and the BOC, has said (through its moutpiece Jim O'Neill who "can't see how the EUR should be above 1.40" even as Thomas Stolper et al see it going to 1.55 in a year) that it is not too crazy about having a European replacement for DSK, and that "it might be better if some leadership and authority came from outside of Europe with a fresh set of independent eyes" (supposedly the fact that Lagarde has had no formaly economic academic brainwashing is not a factor). In other words, Goldman has aligned itself with China, which has made it clear that it may be wise if the next IMF leadership "reflected the New World Order." As such, the largely symbolic IMF conclave just became very interesting: while the IMF is largely a figurehead with the real backstop organization always being the Federal Reserve, Goldman appears to have just voted alongside China... and thus against Europe and the US.

Following Friday's news that China has now surpassed India as the world's largest buyer of gold, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the country is trying to capitalize on the popular interest in the precious metal by transferring the trading infrastructure away from US to domestic capital markets. First, it recently launched a 1 kilo gold futures contract on the HK Merc in an obvious attempt to undermine the Comex monopoly in the space, and next it seems that China has the GLD plain in its sights, as it plans to start exchange-traded funds, tapping rising demand in China, the world’s biggest investment market for the precious metal. Often blamed for the recent volatility in the price of gold, precious metal ETFs have been primarily an instrument available to those with access to the US market. That appears to be ending, and with an entire nation suffering from gold fever (as inflation continues to be goalseeked by the China politburo above expectations in what appears to be a programmed attempt by the Chinese central planners to push its population into gold hoarding) and about to be offered a simple way of investing in (paper) gold, it is likely that the price of gold (and soon thereafter all other commodities) will see unprecedented spikes in price in either direction as millions more are given direct exposure to trading the non-dilutable currency equivalent.

"Reasons why the EUR will escape crisis: [This space intentionally left blank]"

By now it has been made very clear that Jim Grant is firmly in the (correct, at least according to us) camp that no matter what, the Fed will be forced to proceed with at least one more (and likely many) round of quantitative easing. In his latest must read interview, the author of Grant's Interest Rate Observer further explains, in simple terms, not only why the Fed is boxed in when it comes to monetary policy (an assessment comparable to that by Marc Faber back in March: "We may drop 10 to 15 percent. Then QE 2 will come, (then) QE 4, QE 5,
QE 6, QE 7—whatever you want. The money printer will continue to print,
that I'm sure. Actually I made a mistake. I meant to
say QE 18."),  but also refutes the fallacy of counterfactual statements that the world would end if the Fed had not intervened to prevent a systemic collapse in 2008, why a gold standard in our lifetimes is coming, on whether he is buying gold currently, on inflation, on corporate valuation, and where (and more importantly when) investors should be putting money to work.

Jan Hatzius' economic team finally comes out with a report that bears presenting as it aptly discloses one of the core conundrums facing the Fed: you can have low unemployment (eventually... courtesy of many years of ZIRP and QE in an environment of "fiscal adjustment", or Goldman's term for Congressional "austerity"), or you can have low gas prices. But you can't have both. To wit: "The combination of tight energy markets and high unemployment poses a dilemma for monetary policy. If policy is kept easy to boost growth, unemployment will decline but the oil market is at risk of overheating. But if policy is tightened to confront the pressure from higher oil prices on (headline) inflation, unemployment is likely to remain  far above desirable levels for a long time to come." And while the price of gas can be (very briefly) controlled by various volatility enhancing margin moves by the exchanges (which for those confused are nothing but self-reinforcing loops - increased vol leading to a margin hike, leads to more vol, leading to more margin hikes, etc). Too bad the CME can't just lower margin on unemployment to -100%. But it can't. Which is why very soon the Fed will be forced to admit to the whole world that "ultimately, a return to equilibrium in both the oil and labor market is likely to require an increase in the real price of oil. In theory, policymakers could react to this by  targeting either a combination of temporarily higher headline inflation with stable core inflation, or stable headline with lower—and in an extreme case negative—core inflation."  And here Goldman throws a stunner: when debating the implications for fiscal policy (we all know what monetary policy will look like: QE 3 through N), the firm proposes the following: "one complement to a low interest rate policy could be a higher energy tax. If one believes that higher real energy prices will be needed in coming years, an energy tax would promote that shift and also capture some of the surplus that would otherwise have gone to foreign producers." Is the government about to unleash some EPS destruction in the E&P and refining space? It appears Goldman has already given the green light which is really all it takes.

Today's EUR trading session which begins in about 4 hours, may be rather violent. While on one hand we have bond-negative news out of Spain, the biggest news once again comes out of the Swiss journal NZZ, which citing greek newspaper Kahtimerini, discloses that insolvent Greece has less than two months of cash left, or enough to last it until July 18, unless a new installment in the bailout tranche is approved for the country by the now headless IMF, and the "suddenly" insolvent ECB. Insolvent, because as Spiegel will report in its headline article tomorrow, and as we have noted many times before, the bank is suddenly finding itself lending out money collateralized by now virtually D-rated bonds: something not even Trichet will be able to spin off to the increasingly malevolent media. Per Dow Jones: "Skeleton risks amounting to several hundreds of billions of euros are on the balance sheet of the European Central Bank, magazine Der Spiegel writes in a preview of its edition to be published Monday. Those risks arise because banks, above all from Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, have provided as collateral asset-backed securities that are unfit for central bank loans as their debt rating is low or non-existent, the magazine says." Alas, the European central bank's dirty laundry is being exposed just as a rift between the bank and Germany: its most solvent backer, is starting to develop. Also from Dow Jones: "German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble cautioned in an interview published Sunday that there shouldn't be a conflict with the European Central Bank over a possible restructuring of Greek debt. "If in the end it should come to an extension of bonds, of course, we need the approval of the IMF and above all of the ECB. Under no circumstances should it come to a conflict with the ECB," Schaeuble told Bild am Sonntag. "I advise all of us to use restraint in public debates about this question." Several ECB officials have rejected a restructuring of Greek debt and have warned of possible catastrophic consequences, while European finance ministers are slowly warming up to the possibility of some kind of restructuring as a last resort." Thus the crunch time for Europe's latest kick the can down the road round, once again centered on a bankrupt Greece, may be coming fast, and this time with a rather furious Germany.

A year after an insolvent European continent realized it is long overdue to implement fiscal consolidation, aka tightening, also known as 2010's keyword of choice: "austerity", the political regimes who have supported fiscal prudence are one after another falling victim to the general population's dissatisfaction with the gradual elimination of a myriad of socialist policies. Following recent electoral losses in Germany, not to mention the overthrow of the Portuguese government, which like Belgium, continues to be in limbo, today we move on to the second to last domino in the PIIGS chain: Spain (and Italy is next: S&P took the time at 6pm on Saturday to remind everyone about that particular unpleasant fact). Per Reuters: "Spaniards began voting on Sunday in local and regional polls expected to deal heavy losses to the ruling Socialists, who are blamed for widespread unemployment that has off a wave of pre-election protests. Tens of thousands of Spaniards demonstrated in the past week in city squares around the country against austerity measures that have kept a fiscal crisis at bay but aggravated the highest jobless rate in the European Union. [as a reminder a webcam of the Madrid protests can be found here]. The protesters have called on Spaniards to reject the Socialists and the center-right Popular Party, the main two political options in Spain." The problem is that when you overthrow socialists, it is unlikely that you will get more socialism down the road. Which, however, is what everyone in this country of 21% unemployment, and nearly 50% joblessness in the 18-25 age group really wants.