Federal Reserve

• As scandals mount, White House springs into damage control (Reuters)
• Glencore Xstrata chairman ousted in surprise coup (Reuters), former BP CEO Tony Hayward appointed as interim chairman (WSJ)
• JPMorgan Chase asks Bloomberg for data records (Telegraph)
• Platts Retains Energy Trader Confidence Amid Price-Fix Probe (BBG)
• Syrian Internet service comes back online (PCWorld)
• Japan Q1 growth hits 3.5% on Abe impact although fall in business investment clouds optimism for recovery (FT)
• Soros Joins Gold-Stake Cuts Before Bear Market Drop (BBG)
• Factory Ceiling Collapses in Cambodia (WSJ)
• Sony’s $100 Billion Lost Decade Supports Loeb Breakup (BBG)
• Snags await favourite for Federal Reserve job (FT)
• James Bond’s Pinewood Turned Down on $300 Million Plan (BBG)

With Paulson's star long gone down, there are few remaining "new generation" hedge fund wunderkinds, especially in a world in which the best performing hedge fund is Federal Reserve Capital LLC - Onshore Fund. One among them is Third Point's Dan Loeb, who continues to be one of the best performing hedge fund managers for the 4th year in a row. He just filed his Q1 13F, amounting to $5.3 billion in disclosed long equity positions, which are summarized below. Of note are the following changes:

• New stakes in Virgin Media ($538MM), Tiffany ($188MM), Anadarko ($105MM), Thermo Fisher ($99MM), Cabot Oil and Gas ($84MM), Hess ($72MM) and others. Some of these overlap with the initiations of David Tepper and David Einhorn especially Hess: did some "idea dinners" take place in Q1 we were not aware of?
• Fully exited stakes in Tesoro, Morgan Stanley, Nexen, Symantec, Herbalife, Illumina, Coke, PVH, Abbott Labs and others.
• Reduced positions in Yahoo, AIG, New Corp, Murphy Oil, Delphi, Lyondell and others
• Added to stakes in International Paper, Abbvie, Dollar General, Constellation, and Ariad

There have been a litany of articles written recently discussing how the stock market is set for a continued bull rally.  There are some primary points that are common threads among each of these articles which are that interest rates are low, corporate profitability is high and the Fed's monetary programs continue to put a floor under stocks.  The problem is that while we do not disagree with any of those points - they are all artificially influenced by outside factors.   Interest rates are low because of the Federal Reserve's actions, corporate profitability is high due to accounting rule changes following the financial crisis and the Fed is pumping money directly into the stock market. Being bullish on the market in the short term is fine.  The expansion of the Fed's balance sheet will continue to push stocks higher as long as no other crisis presents itself.   However, the problem is that a crisis, which is always unexpected, inevitably will trigger a reversion back to the fundamentals.

So, apparently, according to Jon Hilsenrath, "QE to Infinity" is actually "finite" after all. There is no doubt that the Federal Reserve will do everything in its power to try and "talk" the markets down and "signal" policy changes well in advance of actual action.  However, that is unlikely to matter.  The problem with the financial markets today is the speed at which things occur.   High frequency trading, algorithmic programs, program trading combined with market participant's "herd mentality" is not influenced by actions but rather by perception. As stated above, with margin debt at historically high levels when the "herd" begins to turn it will not be a slow and methodical process but rather a stampede with little regard to valuation or fundamental measures. The reality is that the stock market is extremely vulnerable to a sharp correction.   Currently, complacency is near record levels and no one sees a severe market retracement as a possibility.  The common belief is that there is "no bubble" in assets and the Federal Reserve has everything under control. Of course, that is what we heard at the peak of the markets in 2000 and 2008 just before the "race for the door." This time will be no different.

Despite the aura of control, Fed officials (and casual observers) may sense things spinning out of control. Of course, hyper-fragility is exactly the effect that all the Fed’s own actions would predictably lead to. When you divorce truth from reality, strange things are bound to happen. There is one thing that we know for sure in this strange period when bankers have tried to manage reality in the absence of truth: that advanced industrial-technological economies designed to run on $20-a-barrel oil can’t run on $100-a-barrel oil, and that is why the US economy was subject to financialization in the first place - to offset declining productive activity by an attempt to get something for nothing. The world is about to find out that you really can’t get something for nothing. It will be a harsh lesson.

IRS Targeted those Educating Americans "on the Constitution and Bill of Rights", or "Government Spending,  Government Debt or Taxes" or Anyone Working to “Make America a Better Place To Live”

Thanks to the handy Bloomberg surveillance tools, we know that there are 287 current members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with access to a terminal. As of this moment an unimpressive 10% of them (29 to be exact) are signaling green (or active) with Kevin Henry still 'grey' (or untracked), although somewhat expectedly, the bulk of the active NY Fed employees are traders in some capacity. While some in the media would suggest this is somehow critical insights that the Bloomberg reporters can use to completely understand what is going on in the world, we question the usefulness of knowing whether Bill Dudley is logged in. With only 10% online - is that a buy, sell, or hold signal for Goldman or JPM? More importantly, perhaps, we would lose the ability to track the whereabouts of such 'real' Bloomberg users as Fukky Tantang, Diane Beaver, and Ludger Poos.

Critics of Japanese policy worry about its potential failure, here is a discussion of what happens if it succeeds.

• Hilsenrath: A Top Contender at the Fed Faces Test Over Easy Money (WSJ)
• Yen drops further as G7 avoids criticizing Japan (Reuters)
• Markets missed Flaherty’s clues on next Bank of Canada chief (G&M)
• Republicans turn screws over Tea Party tax probes (FT)
• Dual-track Libor replacement lined up (FT)
• Risks to China recovery seen as factory output underwhelms (Reuters)
• Barack Obama’s goal of universal healthcare could be set back significantly by Texas Governor Rick Perry (FT)
• Gold Bears Pull $20.8 Billion as BlackRock Says Buy (BBG)
• Mexico sets shelters as volcano shakes, spews ash (AP)
• Europe Eases Corporate Tax Dodge as Worker Burdens Rise (BBG)
• IPOs Set to Raise Most Cash Since Crisis (WSJ)
• Melting Ice Opens Fight Over Sea Routes for Arctic Debate (BBG)
• Top hedge funds bet on Greek banks (FT)
• Icahn Asks Investors to Make Big Bet on a Debt-Laden Dell (BBG)

A look at the main drivers.

In a weekend dominated by discussion of the "Taper Tantrum", i.e., interpretations of what Hilsenrath "said" after the close on Friday, what the Fed wanted him to say, what the market's response to what he said or did not say would be, and what the next steps may be, we present this convenient annotation of Hilsenrath's complete recital courtesy of Mike O'Rourke from Jones Trading.

Put down the Sunday newspaper; grab a pot of coffee; and call 'mom' and tell her she has to read this. Doug Rudisch has written a far-reaching summary of the true state of the world and 'why policy has failed'. Simply put, there is no faith in the system; real underlying faith and trust in the system, as opposed to the confidence born from economic steroid injections or entitlements. There also is a subtle but important distinction between faith and trust versus confidence. Faith and trust are longer term and more powerful concepts.There is more going on than a temporary lull in animal spirits that current fiscal and monetary policy will cure. If that was the case, it would be working already... We have ended up with a system where the worst of the risk takers have the ability to take the most risk and are currently taking it at extreme levels. We wish we could be more prescriptive and offer more solutions for the problems. But in order to solve a problem, you must first realize you have one. With respect to the Fed, we don’t think the U.S. realizes it has a problem.

As reported on Friday, the most recent example of a breach in informational Chinese walls was confirmed at Bloomberg, where it was discovered that reporters have the same degree of client surveillance as workers on the API/terminal side. The reason why this is problematic is that since Bloomberg is a monopolist in the financial terminal industry, with such competitor attempts as Reuters' Eikon being massive failures, virtually every finance professional needs a terminal (even if the rate of sale of such terminals is slowing down as a result of the ongoing financial margin headaches). Which means that Bloomberg journos, an increasingly competitive service to the likes of Dow Jones, Reuters and AP, may have had an unfair advantage when it comes to tracking their "pray" - Bloomberg's own clients. And now, following the original Goldman complaint which Bloomberg said ended such informational commingling, it is the turn of the Treasury and the Fed (certainly very heave users of the BBG Trading terminal) to complain. What is left unsaid in all of this is the simple question of just why is it material information what the Fed, arguably an entity that at least in a normal world should not have any day to day trade interactions with financial markets, looked up on its trading terminal.

While the stance of monetary policy around the world has, on any conceivable measure, been extreme, the question of whether such a policy is indeed sensible and rational has not been asked much of late. By rational we simply mean the following: Is this policy likely to deliver what it is supposed to deliver? And if it does fall short of its official aim, then can we at least state with some certainty that whatever it delivers in benefits is not outweighed by its costs? We think that these are straightforward questions and that any policy that is advertised as being in ‘the interest of the general public’ should pass this test. As we will argue in the following, the present stance of monetary policy only has a negligible chance, at best, of ever fulfilling its stated aim. Furthermore, its benefits are almost certainly outweighed by its costs if we list all negative effects of this policy and do not confine ourselves, as the present mainstream does, to just one obvious cost: official consumer price inflation, which thus far remains contained. Thus, in our view, there is no escaping the fact that this policy is not rational. It should be abandoned as soon as possible. This will end badly...

There is a term for when asset prices become detached from fundamentals, it’s called “A BUBBLE.”