Central Banks

• Portugal Says Some Town Halls May Need to Restructure Their Debt (Bloomberg)
• Draghi Scotches ECB Exit Talk as Spain Keeps Crisis Alive (Bloomberg)
• China PBOC Injects Net CNY25 Bln Into Money Market This Week (WSJ)
• BoE warns on mortgage limits (FT)
• Apple investigating new iPad WiFi issues, tells AppleCare to replace affected units (9to5Mac)
• Juppé promises French hard line in EU (FT)
• ECB liquidity fuels high stakes hedging (FT)
• Fed’s Lacker Says Markets Saw Odds of Policy Easing as Too High (Bloomberg)
• Japan minister to ask for nuclear reactor restart: media (Reuters)

(The most) bankrupt countries to bail out bankrupt countries. And taxpayers get to foot the bill.

It’s important to put yourself in the minds of OECD policy makers. They are largely managing a retirement class that is moving out of the workforce and looking to draw upon its savings -- savings that are (mostly) in real estate, bonds, and equities. Given this demographic reality, growth in nominal terms is undoubtedly the new policy of the West. While a 'nominal GDP targeting' approach has been officially rejected (so far), don't believe it. Reflationary policy aimed at sustaining asset prices at high levels will continue to be the policy going forward.  While it’s unclear how long a post-credit bubble world can sustain such period of forced growth, what is perfectly clear is that oil is no longer available to fund such growth. For the seventh year since 2005, global oil production in 2011 failed to surpass 74 mbpd (million barrels per day) on an annual basis. But while the West is set to dote upon its retirement class for many years to come, the five billion people in the developing world are ready to undertake the next leg of their industrial growth. They are already using oil at the margin as their populations urbanize. But as the developing world comes on board as new users of petroleum, they still need growing resources of other energy to fund the new growth which now lies ahead of them. This unchangeable fact sets the world on an inexorable path: a competitive race for BTU.

Central Banks' extreme interventionist policies (whether direct money-printing or indirect subordination of existing risk-takers) has left an investing public with a very different risk-reward environment (and very different forecast distributions for future outcomes) as we pointed out earlier. As Matt King of Citigroup notes, the 'risk-on risk-off' environment is here to stay meaning the traditional safety of bonds now offers even less upside and more downside (thanks to subordination) and equities or higher-beta more upside (thanks to central banker puts under asset markets). This helps explain the portfolio-rebalancing effect of QE et al. However, this leads to a focus on high-beta momentum with a growing chasm between price and value - and more likelihood of catastrophic loss when risk-goes-off (as liquidity spigots are closed however temporarily). Efficient frontiers are now not so efficient with marginal returns now perceived as accelerating for incremental risk-taking as the Fed has your back. This means market-cap weighted indices will naturally favor the highest-beta (much more volatile) names that will suffer the most when risk re-appears - so focus on equal-weighted or fundamental-weighted indices for risk-balanced-return. Trying to be long the tails is key as central bankers repress normal investors away from core safety leaving behind the precipice of over-invested, over-risk-stuffed momentum chasers holding the bag.

Bernanke has laid the groundwork for the next massive dislocation.

There are many reasons why gold is still our favorite investment – from inflation fears and sovereign debt concerns to deeper, systemic economic problems. But let's be honest: It's been rising for over 11 years now, and only the imprudent would fail to think about when the run might end. Is it time to start eyeing the exit? In a word, no. Here's why. There's one indicator that clearly signals we're still in the bull market – and further, that we can expect prices to continue to rise. That indicator is negative real interest rates.

Seasonal adjustments are not forever. 

In simple terms, this time around, when Europe goes down (and it will) it’s going to be bigger than anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes. And this time around, the world Central Banks are already leveraged to the hilt having spent virtually all of their dry powder propping up the markets for the last four years. Again, this time it is different. I realize most people believe the Fed can just hit “print” and solve everything, but they’re wrong. The last time the Fed hit “print” food prices hit records and revolutions began spreading in emerging markets. If the Fed does it again, especially in a more aggressive manner as it would have to, we would indeed enter a dark period in the world and the capital markets.

So when will retail investors start buying stocks?  One of the final legs propping up this rally is the belief that retail investors will finally pile into stocks.  There is hope that all this “money on the sidelines” will find its way into the stock market.  The S&P at 1,350 was supposed to do the trick.  Certainly 1,400 on the S&P was going to be enough to chase retail investors into stocks.  Basically the argument that retail will capitulate and finally invest in stocks is based on the assumption that higher prices increase demand – aka, a Giffen Good. Retail investors can see that the U.S.  debt has continued to grow and that in spite of lip service to deficit reduction, we are creating a bigger deficit.  They are nervous about what will happen when finally the spending gets pulled in.  They are also very nervous (as are many professional investors) that they will be the last purchase of stocks before the central banks stop pumping fresh money into the system in their never ending attempt to inflate asset prices. Expecting “the masses” to buy just because something is already up 20% seems a little silly, if not downright arrogant. If there is one sector where the upward price movement is sucking in more money it is amongst corporations themselves and if any group has shown an ability to buy high and sell low, it is corporations themselves. It is just wrong to expect individuals to be as frivolous with their money as corporations are.

The "down in European hours, and surge as soon as Europe is closed" trade is once again so well telegraphed even Mrs. Watanabe is now in it. Sure enough US futures are red as European shares slide for the second consecutive day, with 16 out of 19 sectors down, led by banks, travel and leisure. Spanish and Portuguese bond yields are up. Not much data overnight, except for Chinese Non-manufacturing PMI which rose modestly from massively revised numbers: February adjusted to 57.3 from 48.4; January to 55.7 from 52.9 - and that, BLS, is how you do it. European PPI rose 3.6% Y/Y on estimates of a 3.5% rise, while the employment situation, or rather lack thereof, in Spain gets worse with an 8th consecutive increase in jobless claims, rising by 38,769 to 4.75 million. Bloomberg reports that Spanish home prices are poised to fall the most on record this year, leaving one in four homeowners owing more than their properties are worth, as the government forces banks to sell real-estate holdings. Francois Hollande, France’s Socialist presidential candidate, widened his lead over President Nicolas Sarkozy in voting intentions for the second round of the 2012 election, a BVA poll showed. Italian bank stocks are notably down and today seems set to be the third consecutive day in which we see trading halts in Intesa and Banca Popolare. Few more weeks of this and the financial short-selling ban is coming back with a vengeance. Yet all of this is irrelevant: the bad news will simply mean the global central banks will pump more money, putting even more cracks in the monetary dam wall, and the only question is how long before US stocks decide to front-run the European close, and whether European stocks will rise in sympathy, just because they get to close one more day.

Dear Ben:

You have publicly gone on record with some off-the-wall assertions about the gold standard.  What made you think you could get away with it?  Your best strategy would have been to ignore gold.  Although I concede that with the endgame of the regime of irredeemable paper money near, you might not be able to pretend that people aren’t talking and thinking about gold.  You can’t win, Ben.  In this letter I will address your claims and explain your errors so that the whole world can see them, even if you cannot.

In my continuing attempt to debunk what the European Union presents as facts; I turn my attention to France. I have already given you the correct debt to GDP ratios for Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany which follows the exact principles of what any corporation in America or Europe would be mandated to report or suffer the slings and arrows of being held accountable for Fraud. I include contingent liabilities, derivatives, promises to pay, various guarantees and all of the normal accounting practices to be considered on any balance sheet except the sovereign nations of Europe. In the end, of course, it is your decision but at least we can begin any consideration based upon the facts and not based upon a fictitious account. Again, I divide up the liabilities into two categories, their national obligations and their European obligations; the European Union, the European Central Bank and finally for the other European institutions for which they bear some burden. Then I add it all up, divide by their GDP and we arrive at a factual accounting. Nothing complicated here except sleuthing about to get the data which is no easy task as it is hidden in various nooks and crannies.

Inflection point, yes. There yet, no. 

As Monti said, "The financial aspect of the crisis is over." For the moment. But the problems are worse than ever.

Back in early February, the ECB's Margio Draghi told a naive world when discussing the implication of taking LTRO bailout aid, that “There is no stigma whatsoever on these facilities." We accused him of lying. Additionally, we also suggested to put one's money where Draghi's lies are, and to go long non-LTRO banks, while shorting LTRO recipients. In two short months the spread on that trade has doubled (see below), which intuitively is not surprising: after all, as a former Goldmanite (and according to some - current), Draghi is merely treating Europe's taxpayers like the muppets they are. As such, fading anything he says should come as naturally as Stolpering each and every FX trade. Yet what that little incident shows is that despite all their attempts otherwise, the central planners can not contain every single natural consequences of their artificial and destructive actions. Today, we see learn that the same Stigma we warned about, and that Draghi said does not exist, is starting to spread away from just the bailed out banks (becuase we now know that the LTRO was merely a QE-like bailout of several insolvent Italian and Spanish banks), and to sovereigns. From Bloomberg: "Germany’s Bundesbank is the first of the 17 euro-area central banks to refuse to accept as collateral bank bonds guaranteed by member states receiving aid from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported." And where Buba goes, everyone else is soon to follow. And what happens then? Since it is inevitable that Spain and Italy will be next on the bailout wagon, what happens when over $2 trillion in bonds suddenly become ineligible for cash collateral from the only solvent central bank in the world (aside for that modest, little TARGET2 issue of course). Will it force the ECB to be ever more lenient with collateral, and how long until the plebs finally realize that the ECB has been doing nothing but outright printing in the past 5 months? What happens to inflationary expectations then?