Janet Yellen

Perhaps weak manufacturing, construction, and trade data are mere outliers.  Maybe the Fed can see beyond the fog to clearly capture the big picture.  Or maybe the Fed has lost its marbles.  Their outlook doesn’t jive with that of the regular working stiff.

Today, we bring our readers another RealVision excerpt of a reflexive "interview" in which Pal himself is in the hot seat, and goes into detail explaining the indicators he will be watching throughout 2016 that will suggest that a liquidity crisis is imminent.

When will we know that the United States is really close to “normalizing interest rates”? The U.S. dollar will no longer exist, and (hopefully) neither will the Federal Reserve – the entity which promised to “protect” that dollar.

"Though the decision to raise rates was unanimous, some officials expressed concern about lingering low inflation and the stifling effects on the U.S. economy of a strong U.S. dollar and slow growth overseas."

"We had a hard landing in the stock market already. We had a hard landing in commodities. [So yes], we could have a hard landing in the economy. China has a colossal credit bubble and no one knows how it's going to unwind."

We are currently in a transitional phase of geo-political-monetary power struggles, capital flow decisions, and fundamental economic choices. This remains a period of artisanal (central bank fabricated) money, high volatility, low growth, excessive wealth inequality, extreme speculation, and policies that preserve the appearance of big bank liquidity and concentration at the expense of long-term stability. The potential for chaotic fluctuations in any element of the capital markets is greater than ever. The butterfly effect - the flutter of a wing in one part of the planet altering the course of seemingly unrelated events in another part - is on center stage.

It only takes a moment for the observant viewer to ascertain the state of each of these two realities. There is no Schrodinger's Cat in Dennis' world.

Bill Dudley and the Federal Reserve (Fed), in their efforts to influence economic growth may have created a speculative and consumption driven environment that is crushing productivity growth. Ingenuity, not debt, made America an economic powerhouse. If we are to resume down that path we need the Fed to end their “self-defeating” policies and in its place we must demand ingenuity from them. The Fed, along with government, needs to properly incent productivity. The Fed should start this arduous task by removing excessive stimulus which will take the speculative fervor out of markets and allow asset bubbles to deflate.

Moments ago, in its latest Q4 GDP revision, the Atlanta Fed just pulled the rug from under the economy (and the market now that bad news for the economy is bad news for stocks), and slashed its latest quarterly forecast by another 50%, from 1.3% to a barely positive 0.7%.  In other words, according to the Atlanta Fed, Janet Yellen launched a rate hike cycle in a quarter when GDP will be just 0.7%, and which when averaged across the prior 3 quarters, would mean that the US will have grown at just 1.8% in 2015, a 25% drop from the 2.4% GDP growth in 2014.

Following China's disappointing drop in Manufacturing PMI overnight, this morning started off poorly with Canada's PMI crashing to its lowest reading since records began at 47.5. Then US Manufacturing PMI tumbled to 51.2 - its lowest print since October 2012 (with US factory orders collapsing to weakest since 2009). But The ISM Manufacturing crashed to 48.2 (deep in contraction) - the weakest level since June 2009, with employment bumping along at its lowest level since September 2009 and imports (reflecting domestic demand perhaps) crashed to levels only seen twice in 20 years.

Another possible step would be to reduce short-term interest rates below zero if needed to provide additional accommodation... Could negative interest rates be a policy response that the Federal Reserve could choose to employ in a future crisis? ... these are transitional problems, but they might be sufficient to make a move to negative rates difficult to implement on short notice.

In a guest article for Handelsblatt, Christine Lagarde warns that 2016 is likely to be a disappointment as the Fed hike and China's transition to a consumer-driven economy continue to weigh on global growth prospects. Sorry Janet, it looks like the IMF doesn't agree with your justification for liftoff.

My overriding theme and the central drama for the coming year is that unexpected events can take on greater importance as the Federal Reserve ends its near-decade-long Zero Interest Rate Policy. Consensus premises and forecasts will likely fall flat, in a rather spectacular manner. The low-conviction and directionless market that we saw in 2015 could become a no-conviction and very-much-directed market (i.e. one that's directed lower) in 2016. There will be no peace on earth in 2016, and our markets could lose a cushion of protection as valuations contract. (Just as "malinvestment" represented a key theme this year, we expect a compression of price-to-earnings ratios to serve as a big market driver in 2016.) In other words, we don't think 2016 will be fun.

Two weeks ago we said that "those who have savings at US banks, please don't hold your breath to see any increase on the meager interest said deposits earn." We were wrong: some should certainly have held their breath, because as the WSJ reports today, "some bank customers won’t have to wait much longer to reap benefits from the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates." Some, such as clients of J.P. Morgan, which will begin raising deposit rates for some of its "biggest clients" in January. "Biggest" clients, of course, is a universal euphemism for "wealthiest."

This is what happens when the Fed’s academic-based nonsense collides with economic realities: perversions of capital that lead to massive bubbles and eventually even more massive crises.