Meltdown

"Given the size of foreign holdings of Asian equity and debt, should foreigners reduce their portfolio holdings by 2-3% over the course of a month, it would broadly offset the region’s current account surpluses, leaving their external balances in a shakier position. During the 'taper tantrum' period, foreigners sold markedly more than 3% of their portfolio holdings through June and July 2013, highlighting the risk that portfolio outflows could cause further Asian currency weakness."

With declining crude revenues clashing head on with the cost of simultaneously financing the state while intervening militarily in Yemen, the Saudis are looking to tap the bond market (a move which could increase debt-to-GDP by a factor of 10 by the end of next year) and some are speculating that the riyal’s dollar peg could ultimately prove unsustainable. Now, as Bloomberg reports, "Saudi Arabia is seeking to cut billions of dollars from next year’s budget because of the slump in crude prices."

With professionals proclaiming yesterday's meltdown "historic," and generously telling investors "don't try to overthink what you're seeing," it is clear that the real impact of the carnage wrought by a combination of Fed-indiced crowded trades and HFT illiquidity-providers is yet to be fully appreciated. While Financial advisers, almost unanimously, have cautioned clients not to panic... As one retail investor exclaimed, yesterday's open "was a life-changing 20 minutes."

"China halts intervention in stock market so far this week as policy makers debate merits of an unprecedented government campaign to prop up share prices and what to do next, according to people familiar with situation. Some leaders support argument that stock market is too small relative to broader economy to cause crisis, says one of the people, who asked not to be identified as deliberations are private Leaders also believe intervention is too costly, person says."

If the last two weeks have taught us anything at all (other than that a Reg FD violation is called a "scoop" when it involves Jim Cramer and Tim Cook), it’s that China quite clearly matters - and it matters quite a lot.

Yesterday's market tumble finally brought the S&P and Nasdaq alongside the Dow Jones into correction territory, send the broader index down 11% from its highs, even as a vast majority of S&P constituents already preceded the index and are either in correction or in bear market territory. And yet, following today's latest central bank intervention, this time in the long overdue Chinese interest rate cut (which will hardly have a lasting impact on either the economy or stock markets), the S&P correction may may prove to be short lived: S&P is poised to open about 4% higher, delivering the latest "Bullard" moment to the S&P, this time courtesy of China. Still, the question remains: was that it for the long overdue correction, and what comes next.

Precisely 24 hours ago, in an attempt to pre-empt the panic-selling open, the NYSE invoked the little used Rule 48, which was to be expected: the Nasdaq 100 has just tumbled limit down and the S&P and DJIA would follow shortly. Today, however, it is unclear just why the NYSE decided to once again invoke Rule 48 as futures are set to open about 3-4% higher, and yet that is precisely what the NYSE did. As a reminder, what this means is that mandatory opening indications are not required, which in theory should make it easier to open stocks.

The dual policy rate cut is a desperate attempt to i) free up liquidity, and ii) shore up confidence in the stock market. We suspect the effects may be short lived on both accounts because after all, aggressive easing only fuels further depreciation necessitating further liquidity-sapping FX interventions in a vicious loop, and loose monetary policy likely won’t be much comfort to China’s 90 million retail investors who now, more than ever before, are virtually guaranteed to sell any rip they can get in a desperate attempt to claw back their life savings which they naively poured into stocks back in April and May.

Back in July, when it started to become clear that a succession of declarations, directives, policy rate cuts, and even threats weren’t going to be enough to alleviate the pressure on Chinese equities, Beijing looked to take back the narrative by banning the use of certain undesirable phrases. On Black Monday, they were at it again.

The similarities between the current crisis and that which unfolded in 1997/98 were so readily apparent that many analysts began to draw comparisons and that may have added fuel to fire over the past week. Now, there seems to be a concerted effort to calm the market by explaining that while there are similarities, there are also differences. And while some of the world's imperiled EM economies may be in better shape to defend themselves this time around, when attempting to cope with a meltdown it may be more important to look at where things are similar and on that note, here’s some color from Morgan Stanley and BofAML.

By starving investors of safe return, activist Fed policy has promoted repeated valuation bubbles, and inevitable collapses, in risky assets. On the basis of valuation measures having the strongest correlation with actual subsequent market returns, we fully expect the S&P 500 to decline by 40-55% over the completion of the current market cycle. The only uncertainty has been the triggers.

On the heels of China's "failure" to send the PBoC to the rescue with an RRR cut over the weekend, battered EM assets were hit hard again on Monday as stocks, bonds, and currencies all went into panic mode as the global meltdown gathers pace.

Are there any conditions now that are actually better than those of 2008? Or are conditions now less resilient, more fragile and more dependent on unprecedented central bank interventions?

"Regional buyers need a lot of conviction to step in front of this speeding train [especially] in context of a rapidly changing economic environment."