Futures market

One of the most important decisions participants in the foreign exchange must make is whether to view the dramatic pullback in most of the major foreign currencies seen in the early days of the new year as a reversal of the trend or as simply an overdue correction.   Our technical analysis sides with the latter and we anticipate renewed dollar weakness in the period ahead. 

We would be forced to reconsider if the euro fell through the $1.2980 area or if sterling fell below $1.60.  Although the dollar's sharp gains against the yen have left it over-extended, we see no compelling technical sign that a reversal is at hand.  Just like ECB's Draghi wielding Outright Market Transaction scheme drove down Spanish and Italian yields, Japan's Abe's rhetoric has been sufficient to drive the yen down without lifting a finger or spending cent.

Last week we introduced our readers to the BIS' Head of Foreign Exchange and Gold, Benoit Gilson. As this week's induction into the FleeceBook hall of fame of faceless individuals behind the scenes whose fingers are on all the relevant buttons, we present to you Michael Cross, Head of Foreign Exchange, and Executive Director for Markets, at the Bank of England, a role which with the arrival of the BoE's new Goldman leader will become quite crucial in the coming weeks as the race to debase finally crosses the English Channel and it is cable's turn to crash and burn against all other currencies.

You truly have to be mentally challenged if you follow the gold/silver market action and cannot appreciate something is very amiss, as per the confused Mitsui gold people, as brought to your attention the other day.

There were some readers who took offense at our "bloodbath" recap of yesterday's market action (modestly different from that provided by MarketWatch). And, all else equal, a modest 28 step drop in the E-Mini/SPX would hardly be earthshattering. However, all else was not equal, and based on peripheral facts, the reason for our qualifier is that as of last week virtually nobody was prepared for a move as violent and sharp as the one experienced in the last minutes of trading yesterday. In such a context a "mere" 1.5% drop in the futures market has a far more pronounced impact on participants than a 10% or even 5% drop would have had, had traders been positioned appropriately. They weren't. So what was the context? Let's find out.

UPDATE: ES -7 after-hours from closing highs (McConnell-Off)

Equity markets started the day off slowly but with confidence disappointing and Harry Reid's name-calling, not even the arrival of the chosen one was enough to juice anything but a minimal bounce in stocks. It looked like S&P 500 futures (ES) were going to retest the flash-crash lows from last week but thanks to a well-timed piece of news that Boehner will be in session on Sunday night (though no accompanying notes on exactly what magical book of crap they will sign off - or not - on) was enough to spur Johhny-5 and his friends into algo-asm action. The initial jerk was perfectly to VWAP and the second jerk took AAPL up to yesterday's closing VWAP. This strength dragged ES higher - reconnecting with a less excited risk-asset market that had remained flat from the day-session open. FX and vol were the main levers to the upside with Treasuries less enamored - though HYG was lifted to fill Monday's gap. Mitch McConnell spoiled the party a little into the unchanged close.

In Late 2006, the S&P 500 futures market traded around 1435 and the commitment of traders was at an extreme net long position. The market fell shortly after only to manage a miraculous rise in the face of hedge funds going bust and an exploding and over-leveraged credit market. In mid-2008, the S&P 500 futures also traded around these levels, from where the epic collapse really began. Six years later, the S&P 500 futures traders are the most bullishly positioned they have been since those heady over-confident days. Still believe the talking heads that there is money on the sidelines waiting to be put to work? Still convinced that there will be some epic rally if the 'fiscal cliff' fallacy is resolved? Positioning (real money) trumps Sentiment (AAII surveys etc.) every day in our book. The Bernank will be pleased at his success.

Aside from the occasional deranged FX algo which today has decided to take out all its pent up binary anger on the GBPUSD, everything else today is closed. Everything, except, of course, for InTrade which come holiday, rain or apocalypse, is a true OTC market and is open all the time 24/7, non stop. Of particular interest is InTrade's market on "The US debt limit to be raised before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012" which moments ago once again came closer to reflecting reality and not the clueless gibberish of "expert" political pundits, and plunged to a contract low 10.1% probability (and price) which considering the late stage in the game, and that at this point the Fiscal Cliff is beyond any 2012 resolution, let alone the debt ceiling, is 10.1% too high (as forecast here nearly two months ago). And like a true market, one can naked short on InTrade. So for all the habitual gamblers out there just itching for some global futures market to reopen somewhere: have at it (but mind the brief squeeze at the next appearance of the "we have a deal" rumor, only to be refuted by the sad political reality of this country moments later). 

The US dollar moved lower over the past week against the major currencies, with the notable exception of the Japanese yen.  The greenback's technical tone has deteriorated.  The euro and sterling appear to have convincingly broken above significant down trend lines.  With the holiday season upon us, there seems to be no compelling technical reason not to look for a continuation of dollar weakness into the end of the year.  Few are incentivized to fight the trend.

The extent of the Fed's easing, and the implication of its guidance, suggests an even more dovish posture than the expansion of QE3+ (remember it was purposely open-ended, unlike QE1 and QE2). While the euro zone economy appears to be contracting this quarter at a slightly faster pace than in Q3, the slowdown in the US is more dramatic.  Growth may be more than cut in half from the 2.7% annual pace seen in Q3.   The fiscal cliff is the main cause of consternation at the moment.  Although there is private negotiations taking place, the public posturing is what investors have to guide them, and it is not particularly flattering.

In our first installment of this series we explored the concept of stock to flow in the gold markets being the key driver of supply/demand dynamics, and ultimately its price. Today we are going to explore the paper markets and, importantly, to what degree they distort upwardly the “flow” of the physical gold market. We believe the very existence of paper gold creates the illusion of physical gold flow that does not and physically cannot exist. After all, if flow determines price – and if paper flow simulates physical metal movement to a degree much larger than is possible – doesn’t it then suggest that paper flow creates an artificially low price?
Leveraged systems are based on confidence – confidence in efficient exchanges, confidence in reputable counterparties, and confidence in the rule of law. As we have learned (or should have learned) with the failures of Long Term Capital Management, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie & Freddie, and MF Global – the unwind from a highly leveraged system can be sudden and chaotic. These systems function…until they don’t. CDOs were AAA... until they weren’t. Paper Gold is just like allocated, unambiguously owned physical bullion... until it’s not.

As ever, it is very difficult to pinpoint exactly why gold and all precious metals fell in price. Interestingly, oil fell by even more - NYMEX crude was down by 1% and was down by more than 1.7% at one stage. The CME Group, which operates the U.S. COMEX gold futures market, said Wednesday's plunge in gold was not the consequence of a "fat finger" or a human error. The trading wasn’t even fast enough to trigger a pause on Globex, said CME.  One thing that we can say for certain was that there was massive, concentrated selling as the New York stock markets opened with some 35,000 lots sold which is equivalent to 3.5 million ounces and saw the price fall from $1,735/oz to $1,711/oz between 0825 and 0830 EST. One sell order alone was believed to be 24 tonnes or 770,000 troy ounces.  Incredibly there was 35% daily volume in just 60 seconds. The selling, like all peculiar, counter intuitive, sharp sell offs in recent months, was COMEX driven with COMEX contracts slammed leading to further stop loss selling. The selling may have been by speculative players on the COMEX. It may have been algo or computer trading driven or tech selling – although this is less likely. Informed commentators questioned the nature of the selling as a large institutional COMEX trading entity would normally gradually sell a position of this size in order to maximise profit.

• Egypt protests continue in crisis over Mursi powers (Reuters)
• Greece hires Deutsche, Morgan Stanley to run Greek voluntary debt buy back, sources say (Kathimerini)
• Executives' Good Luck in Trading Own Stock (WSJ)
• Hollande Presents Mittal Nationalization Among Site Options (Bloomberg)
• Eurozone states face losses on Greek debt (FT)
• Spain's rescued banks to shrink, slash jobs (Reuters)
• EU Approves Spanish Banks' Restructuring Plans (WSJ)
• At SAC, Portfolio Managers Are Treated Like Stocks (BBG)
• China considers easing family planning rules (Reuters)
• European Court to Rule Over ECB’s Secret Greek File (BusinessWeek)
• And another top tick indicator: Asia Funds Buy London Offices in Bet Volatility Is Past (Bloomberg)
• Harvard Doctor Turns Felon After Lure of Insider Trading (BBG)
• Zucker Is Lead Candidate to Head CNN (WSJ) - it's not true until CNN misreports it
• Iran "will press on with enrichment:" nuclear chief (Reuters)

About a month ago, in the third-quarter report of a Canadian global macro fund, its strategist made the interesting observation that “…Four ideas in particular have caught the fancy of economic policy makers and have been successfully sold to the public…” One of these ideas “…that has taken root, at least among the political and intellectual classes, is that one need not fear fiscal deficits and debt provided one has monetary sovereignty…”. This idea is currently growing, particularly after Obama’s re-election. But it was only after writing our last letter, on the revival of the Chicago Plan (as proposed in an IMF’ working paper), that we realized that the idea is morphing into another one among Keynesians: That because there cannot be a gold-to-US dollar arbitrage like in 1933, governments do indeed have the monetary sovereignty. It is not; and in the process of explaining why, we will also describe the endgame for the current crisis... "…We cannot arbitrage fiat money, but we can repudiate the sovereign debt that backs it! And that repudiation will be the defining moment of this crisis…"