Archive - Jul 14, 2012 - Story

And now a little something for everyone who consistently has a nagging feeling that at any second the world is one short flap of a butterfly's wings away from complete systemic disintegration: according to David Korowicz of FEASTA, and his most recent paper: 'Trade-Off: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion: a study in global systemic collapse." that just may be the case. Think of the attached 78-page paper as Nassim Taleb meets Edward Lorenz meets Malcom Gladwell meets Arthur Tansley meets Herman Muller meets Werner Heisenberg meets Hyman Minsky meets William Butler Yeats, and the resultant group spends all night drinking absinthe and smoking opium, while engaging in illegal debauchery in the 5th sub-basement of the Moulin Rouge circa 1890.  To wit: "Something sets off an interrelated Eurozone crisis and banking crisis, a Spanish default say, which spreads panic and fear across other vulnerable Eurozone countries. This sets off a Minsky moment when overleveraged speculators in the banking and shadow banking system are forced to unwind positions into a one-sided (sellers only) market. The financial system contagion passes a tipping point where governments and central banks start to lose control and panic drives a (positive feedback) deepening and widening of the impact globally. In our tropic model of the globalised economy, the banking and monetary system keystone hub comes out of its equilibrium range, crosses a tipping point, and is driven away by positive feedbacks to some new state.... it is very clear that we have learned almost nothing general about risk management as a societal practice arising from the financial crisis. We have merely adopted a new consensus, with a questionable acknowledgement that we will not let this type of crisis happen again. However, the argument in this following report is that we are facing growing real-time, severe, civilisation transforming risks without any risk management."

In an interview on Bloomberg TV, RDM Financial's Ron Weiner summarizes the thing that keeps him up at night as in over thirty years he has never seen "The fate of the world economy rests so much on politicians." Pointing to the sad reality that since WWII the US has always spent more than it earns, he warns that if the politicians don't make it right, then "the markets will!" The heuristic bias to accept the spending status quo, as for most young-to-middle-aged people 'it has always been this way' - just like rising home prices (whose 'new normal recovery' Bloomberg's Joe Brusuelas admirably destroys with a single-chart of shadow inventory and opacity of bank balance sheets), is so entrenched, thanks to the last sixty years or so of 'growth', that when asked 'if it is possible to cut spending', he replies "you have to!" and if it's not politically possible then once again "the market will take care of it". This brief three minute clip reminds us of the disbelief and head-in-the-sand mean-reverting bias so widespread in developed nations (citizens and politicians) and summarily dismisses it with a reminder that 'it just has to be reasonable men that we elect to do it" - and better that than let the market force their hand.

In a few moments we will post a critical analysis by David Korowicz, titled Trade-Off: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross- Contagion: a study in global systemic collapse, arguably one of the best big picture overviews of the New Normal in systemic complexity, which considers the "relationship between a global systemic banking, monetary and solvency crisis and its implications for the real-time flow of goods and services in the globalised economy" and specifically looks at how various "what if" scenarios can propagate through a Just In Time world in which virtually everything is connected, and in which even a modest breakdown in one daisy-chain can lead to uncontrolled systemic collapse via the trade pathways more than ever reliant on solvency, sound money and bank intermediation.To wit: "For example, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York commissioned a study of the structure of the inter-bank payment flows within the US Fedwire system they found remarkable levels of concentration. Looking at 7,000 transfers between 5,000 banks on an average day, they found 75% of payment flows involved less than 0.1% of the banks and 0.3% of linkages."

In the US and Europe we have slowly come to the realization that traditional accommodative economic policies leave, and have left, the real economy limp.  Wildly divided governments don't help, but beyond the fact that western decision making bodies are polarized, it is abundantly clear that the panacea for the global economy is not even on the table right now.  The western world has been thrown into a bout of sovereign game theory, and by the constructs of game theory itself, one country will "win," while everyone else will lose to varying degrees.  But that we are such a highly integrated global economy--the reason the whole world is heading towards recession right now--means that a solution must incorporate every economy around the world.  The current game Europe is playing is bound to fail because if one country gets their way, others lose by definition.

In a memo released to Barclays staff, outgoing Chairman Marcus Agius appeared to throw the rest of his Liebor-fixing cohort banks under the bus, noting that "As other banks settle with authorities, and their details become public, and various governments' inquiries shed more light, our situation will eventually be put in perspective" by the fines handed out to other international banks. As Sky News reports, it appears 90 million emails and 1 million voicemails will be made available to the independent body spearheading the Liebor probe - the details of which are being finalized this weekend. While the rest of the memo focused on the restoration of Barclays' reputation and the "trust that has been so badly damaged", they quite clearly hinted at its rivals were likely to be hit with even harder fines that the GBP290 million imposed on Barclays. They add, as if we did not need reminding that "the macro-environment remains febrile, especially in Europe. We have to remain vigilant on balance sheet exposures and risk management. In short, our focus must remain on capital, funding and liquidity; improving returns; and driving income growth." But we can't help but feel a Charles Prince-esque defense coming here that 'everyone was doing it' and while the music still played, we kept 'dancing'.

Last week the S&P erased 6 days of consecutive losses in 30 minutes of trading on the back of news that JPMorgan lost at least 25% of its average annual Net Income in one epic trade, and stands to make far fewer profits in the future, even as the regulators are about to fire a whole lot of traders for mismarking hundreds of billions in CDS. This was somehow considered "good news." This being the "new normal" market, where nothing makes sense, and where EUR repatriation as a result of wholesale asset sales by European banks drives stocks higher, we were not too surprised. Sadly, even in the new normal, things eventually have to get back to normal. And that normal will come as corporate earnings are disclosed over not so much over the next 3 weeks, when 77% of the companies in the S&P report Q2 results, but in the 3rd quarter. Why the third quarter? Simple: as Goldman's David Kostin explains, "consensus now expects year/year EPS growth to accelerate from 0% in 2Q, to 3% in 3Q to 17% in 4Q." Sorry, but this is not going to happen...

While JPM may or may not have succeeded in burying its deeply humiliating CIO fiasco at the expense of two things: i) a loss of up to 25% in recurring net income and ii) Jamie Dimon proudly throwing numerous of his key traders under the regulatory bus as scapegoats because it took the firm until July 12 to realize that its entire CDS book was criminally mismarked, thus confirming a "weakness in internal controls" (a statement not only we, but Bloomberg's Jonathan Weil vomits all over), the truth is that one way or another, Jamie Dimon will find a way to reposition his prop trading book somewhere else, even if it means far smaller and less obtrusive profits for the next several years. Yet there is a way to virtually make sure that Jamie Dimon is never allowed to trade as a hedge fund ever again, and in the process risk insolvency and yet another taxpayer bailout. Ironically, it is JPMorgan itself that tells everyone precisely what it is.

Central banks have added a net of 1,290 tonnes since the fourth quarter of 2008. This total excludes China and other nations that don't regularly report their activity, as well as countries that have been surreptitiously buying their own production. That's a lot of gold buying. One has to wonder whether so much buying may in fact signal a top for gold. After all, a number of prominent analysts have claimed for some time that gold is in a bubble and that it's all downhill from here. Not so fast. Like many mainstream reports, looking at the short-term picture usually leads to erroneous conclusions. Let's put central-bank purchases into historical perspective.

In lieu of the election of Socialist President Francois Hollande and a Socialist Party collision as the majority in France’s Parliament, the New York Times recently asked “what does it mean to be a Socialist these days, anyway?”   According to The Grey Lady, socialism today is “certainly nothing radical” and simply meant the “the emancipation of the working class and its transformation into the middle class” during its heyday.  Essentially the article categorizes the contemporary socialist as one who is a rigorous defender of the welfare state.  The piece quotes French journalist Bernard-Henri Levy as saying “European socialists are essentially like American Democrats.”  It even accuses center-right political parties in the West of being quite comfortable with socialism’s accomplishments. So is the New York Times correct?  Is socialism just a boogeyman evoked by the “fringes” to scare the public into questioning the morality and efficiency of the welfare state?