Obamacare

A six state silver lining..

Whitney Tilson, who needs no introduction given his omnipresence on the business media and anti-omniscience (e.g. the Anti-Tilson ETF here) when it comes to stock-picking, may just have put the final nail in the coffin of Obama's chances of winning the election. Via the quill of the man that top-ticked NFLX, "Why I'm Voting for Obama Again":

In virtually every area – the economy, jobs, social issues, foreign affairs, etc. – I think Obama has done well in his first term (and am optimistic that he’ll be even better in his second term), and going forward I believe Obama and the Democrats have a more clearly defined, realistic, better plan for our country than Romney and the Republicans.

While the much anticipated ramp into the elections has so far failed to materialize (confirming yet another "technical pattern" of the New Normal, namely that whatever most expect to happen, never happens), it is time to consider what impact a given administration - either Republican or Democrat - would have on the stock market. Fiscal cliff aside, whose overcoming will be very problematic in either case and will likely necessitate a market plunge a la August 2011 to be fully implemented, although more likely if Romney wins the presidency or there is a Democratic sweep, both outcomes which according to popular conventional wisdom and various online polling services have a less than 50% chance of occurring, it turns out that at the macro level there is absolutely no difference for the market whether the president is a republican or a democrat for stock returns one year after the election. As Goldman observes: "Since 1976, the S&P 500 has offered approximately 10% total returns in the twelve months following a presidential election, regardless of which party wins that election. Performance is also very similar over shorter three and six month windows. However, median returns are slightly better early in Republican administrations, while during an entire four year term the equity market has somewhat higher returns under Democrats." In other words, those who are unsure if to invest in the broad market based on who wins, should not have the party affiliation of the winner as a consideration, at least not as a key issue. Where there are, however, nuances is at the sector level, which is where those seeing to generate "presidential beta" should consider trading on.

Was it just us - or was that a bit of a snoozer? Some fascinating 'off-topic' debates that dragged us from Mali to Massachusetts 1st grade math scores, and from Bayonets to Obamacare. Some reasonable amount of agreement between the two on foreign policy punctuated by flip-flopper and weakling name-calling. Ironically, given our boxing-match meme - the counterpunches were incessant though Romney seemed to play defense more and Obama appeared to more urgently change the discussion (with little impact). Lots of braggadocio on naming multi-syllabic foreign towns and leaders. Obama won the drinking-game challenge by a long-way 53:34. Obama also won the 'time-spoken' challenge (by the narrowest margin of the 3 debates) 41:42 to 41:07. Obama's odds of an election win levitated modestly from the beginning (from around 59.5% to 61.5%). Of course, Wal-Mart got very, very quiet when the cheap China import bashing started, but luckily it too was based on generic 10 second attention span talking points, and led nowhere, so the Waltons can get back to doing what they do best. So far an Obama clean-sweep on our scientific study, which of course was highly irrelevant: all the truly important foreign issues (EU, China economic ascendancy, Japanese decline) were ignored. Why? The "Mr. Chairman will get to work" of course, showing once again who is truly in charge.

Well, who knew it was gonna actually get close to fisty-cuffs? According to CNN Polls, 65% believe Obama won (with 50% saying by a lot) and 19% that Romney won by a lot. Obama dominated speaking time 44:05 to a mere 40:50 for Romney (almost the same margin as in the last debate); but Romney (somewhat ironically) crushed Obama in the drinking game 44:23. Obama Intrade Odds wavered during the debate ending marginally higher but S&P 500 futures are tracking lower. Twitter interest fell 30% from the first debate. Full Bloomberg Headlines and Top Ten Debate Lines below. Obama uttered a brisk 7651 words for a 173 word/min pace (172 last debate) while Romney's 8006 words  were spoken at a 196 word/min pace (slower than his 217 pace of the last debate) but still the winner. So, time: Obama, drinking-game: Romney, word-count: Romney - the winner of tonight's debate is Mitt Romney.

How does the US economy add 800K+ jobs during a month in which employment taxes and consumer spending FALL? Answer: magic! Or actually the BLS lied... again.

Even if both the Bush tax cuts and emergency unemployment insurance are extended, the 'sequester' is mostly postponed, and the fresh fiscal drag is confined to the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the new taxes to pay for Obamacare, Goldman estimates suggest that fiscal policy would shave nearly 1.5% from real GDP growth in early 2013. While it seems the 'market' believes that some compromise will be enough to lift the market to new stratospheric heights; we believe, as does Goldman, that the risks are almost exclusively on the downside of this 'not so good' fiscal scenario.

Polticians lie. Obama and Romney are politicians. They talk. Therefore they lie. They lied big time during the debate. Are our choices between evil and lesser evil?

The first debate is still in progress, but the habitual gamblers who have a compulsion to bet all the time 24/7 on event outcomes have already spoken via their favorite venue InTrade, and the initial reaction is not favorable for the incumbent. Having traded over 70 for nearly two weeks, the "Obama for president" contract flash crashed below 70 promptly for the first time in many days, and has slid 8% in the past few minutes. Naturally, the contract has quite a bit to go until parity. On the other hand it does bear remembering that when it comes to predictive capacity InTrade odds are notoriously bad: just recall the Obamacare gamble when virtually everyone on InTrade was certain it would not pass. All that said, at least according to InTrade it appears that the first presidential debate has not gone quite as the current president might have planned.

What kind of plan is that?

While InTrade did not exactly 'nail' the Obamacare odds, the surge in the odds of Obama winning the election has been incredible since the announcement of QEternity. Admittedly it has coincided with some general 'foot-in-mouth'-edness by his opponent, but the record high levels over 70% are not behaving how one would expect given equity movements. In fact it appears that rather than 'the market' being the main factor in his re-election, it seems inflation expectations are more critical - especially given the huge volume rise. It seems implicitly that Meyer Rothschild's famous quote: "Let me control a peoples' currency and I care not who makes their laws" has never been more true. Or perhaps, the odds can be gamed to become self-confirming (just as with HFT in stocks) - especially given the volume surge?

What the Fed did was actually much more than QE3. Call it QE3-plus... a gift that will now keep on giving. The new normal of bad news being good news is now going to be more fully entrenched for the market and 'housing data' (the most trustworthy of data) - clearly the Fed's preferred transmission mechanism - is now front-and-center in driving volatility. I don't think this latest Fed action does anything more for the economy than the previous rounds did. It's just an added reminder of how screwed up the economy really is and that the U.S. is much closer to resembling Japan of the past two decades than is generally recognized. It would seem as though the Fed's macro models have a massive coefficient for the 'wealth effect' factor. The wealth effect may well stimulate economic activity at the bottom of an inventory or a normal business cycle. But this factor is really irrelevant at the trough of a balance sheet/delivering recession. The economy is suffering from a shortage of aggregate demand. Full stop. It just perpetuates the inequality that is building up in the country, and while this is not a headline maker, it is a real long term risk for the health of the country, from a social stability perspective as well.

What is it that makes Keynesians so insanely self destructive?  Is it their mindless blind faith in the power of government?  Their unfortunate ignorance of the mechanics of monetary stimulus?  Their pompous self-righteousness derived from years of intellectual idiocy?  Actually, I suspect all of these factors play a role.  Needless to say, many of them truly believe that the strategy of fiat injection is viable, even though years of application have proven absolutely fruitless.  Anyone with any sense would begin to question what kind of madness it takes to pursue or champion the mindset of the private Federal Reserve bank… Quantitative easing has shown itself to be impotent in the improvement of America’s economic situation.  Despite four years of free reign in central banking, employment remains dismal in the U.S., the housing market continues its freefall, and, our national debt swirls like a vortex at the heart of the Bermuda Triangle.  Despite this abject failure of Keynesian theory, the Federal Reserve is attempting once again to convince you, the happy-go-lucky American citizen, that somehow, this time around, everything will be “different”.

"Yellow journalism" – which seems almost the only kind we have these days dominates our newsflow, but the truth is out there. As with everything else though, it's subject to Pareto's Law. So, 80% of what's out there is crap, and 80% of what's left is merely okay. But that remaining 4% of quality, uncensored, free information flow is extremely valuable. The terminal corruption of the major news corporations and the lack of interest in seeking the truth among the general population augurs very poorly for the prospects of the US and the current world order. This creates speculative opportunities, but prospects for mainstream investments are not good. Western civilization is truly in decline and far down the slippery slope.

The disregard for the future and the fundamentals of fiscal well-being is about to reap consequences. The Powers That Be counted on "time healing all," as if the mere passage of time would magically heal a broken economy and political machine. Time heals all--unless you have an aggressive cancer. The system has been pushed to extremes: the expectations are impossibly high, the promises are impossibly generous and the sums of money demanded by the vested interests "just to stay afloat" are stratospheric. The "run to fail" levers have all been pushed to the maximum, and it is simply too politically painful to make any real-world adjustments that might save the system from imploding. Nobody wants a crisis, yet a crisis is the only thing that can save the system from implosion.