Price Action

Iran's oil exports have dropped in March as buyers prepare for sanctions, and shipments are likely to shrink further if Obama determines by Friday that markets can adjust to less Iranian oil and tightens sanctions even further. Sanctions could eventually leave half of Iran's oil output cut off from international markets, according to analysts and officials. Iran is also being excluded from global commerce and the global economy by being locked out of the international payment system – SWIFT. SWIFT, the Brussels based clearing house, announced last week it will cut services to Iranian banks on foot of European sanctions, in order to comply with the EU Council. The service denial includes Iran’s central bank, which processes Iran’s oil revenues. Some 30 Iranian banks will be blocked from doing international business. History suggests that the trade, economic and currency war with Iran may soon degenerate into an actual war. Increasingly, the regime in Iran has little to lose in engaging in a more aggressive foreign policy – including attempting to close the strategically important Straits of Hormuz.

The price of gold is being actively managed by central planners and their proxies. The main culprit here appears to be the US authorities, as the manipulation is most apparent in the US open gold market. For the most part, this 'management' has resulted in letting the price of gold rise, but not too much, or too quickly.  The price of gold has always been an object of interest for governments and central bankers. The reason is simple enough to understand: Gold is an objective measure of the degree to which fiat money is being managed well or managed poorly. As such, whenever paper money is being governed poorly, the price of gold becomes an important barometer. And this is why the actual price of gold is a strong candidate to be 'managed.' Or 'influenced'. Or 'manipulated'. Whichever word you prefer, they all convey the same intent. Some who are reading this are likely having an eye-rolling moment because they hold a belief that there is no conspiracy to manage the price of gold. This is an interesting belief to hold because it runs heavily against the odds. We could spend a lot of time discussing how a belief such as 'gold is not being manipulated' gets promoted and inserted into the popular consciousness, but we won't. Instead, we'll simply note that the people who hold this belief -- and you may be among them -- react to the concept at a visceral level, often with strong emotions such as anger or contempt, and even anxiety. When a strong emotional response surfaces during a conversation of ideas, it usually means that beliefs are in play -- neither facts nor logic. Experience has taught me that when someone becomes dismissive or angry or hostile when the idea of price manipulation is discussed, it's best to simply drop the conversation and move on. No combination of logic or facts is effective against a deeply-held belief. It's better to wait until some new evidence calls that belief into question, opening the door for revisiting the topic. But for those with an open mind, there is a very interesting trail of dots to connect.

For every semi-positive data point the bulls have emphasized since the market rally began, there's a counter-point that makes us question what all the fuss is about. The bulls will cite expanding US GDP in late 2011, while the bears can cite US food stamp participation reaching an all-time record of 46,514,238 in December 2011, up 227,922 participantsfrom the month before, and up 6% year-over-year. The bulls can praise February's 15.7% year-over-year increase in US auto sales, while the bears can cite Europe's 9.7% year-over-year decrease in auto sales, led by a 20.2% slump in France. The bulls can exclaim somewhat firmer housing starts in February (as if the US needs more new houses), while the bears can cite the unexpected 100bp drop in the March consumer confidence index five consecutive months of manufacturing contraction in China, and more recently, a 0.9% drop in US February existing home sales. Give us a half-baked bullish indicator and we can provide at least two bearish indicators of equal or greater significance. It has become fairly evident over the past several months that most new jobs created in the US tend to be low-paying, while the jobs lost are generally higher-paying. This seems to be confirmed by the monthly US Treasury Tax Receipts, which are lower so far this year despite the seeming improvement in unemployment. Take February 2012, for example, where the Treasury reported $103.4 billion in tax receipts, versus $110.6 billion in February 2011. BLS had unemployment running at 9% in February 2011, versus 8.3% in February 2012. Barring some major tax break we've missed, the only way these numbers balance out is if the new jobs created produce less income to tax, because they're lower paying, OR, if the unemployment numbers are wrong. The bulls won't dwell on these details, but they cannot be ignored.

In Don Coxe's latest and typically excellent letter, "All Clear?", he highlights the opportunity in precious metals mining companies: "If there were one over-arching theme at the BMO Global Metals & Mining Conference, it was that the gold miners are upset and even embarrassed that their shares have so dramatically underperformed bullion...  "On the one hand, they were delighted in 2011 when it was reported that since Nixon closed the gold window, a bar of bullion had delivered higher investment returns than the S&P 500 for forty years-- with dividends reinvested. But some gold mining CEOs find it an insult that what they mine is more respected than their companies' shares...  "In our view, we have entered the most favourable era for gold prices in our lifetime, and the share prices of the great mining companies will eventually outperform bullion prices." As Don Coxe makes clear, governments are running deficits "beyond the forecasts of all but the hardiest goldbugs five years ago; central banks are printing money and creating liquidity beyond the forecasts of all but the most paranoid goldbugs a year ago." The choice for the saver is essentially binary: hold money in ever-depreciating paper, or in a tangible vehicle that has the potential to rise dramatically as expressed in paper money terms.

Short term, the bulls will probably remain in control. 

For the third day in a row (equal most for the year), stocks fell, led by the broad high-beta sectors (as one would expect) with energy (suffering as WTI lost almost 2%), materials, industrials, and financials all down notably (with the majors dominating weakness in the financials - though still up significantly post-JPM-divi). Futures and cash volumes picked up from yesterday - nearing their average year-to-date but average trade size fell further equaling the lowest year-to-date. With the China news (and then Europe), it was AUD and JPY that dominated price action as JPY strengthened and AUD weakened leaving the USD tracking the EUR and ending very modestly higher on the day. Commodities faced another day of torment with Silver underperforming. Gold outperformed but was down on the day still as from mid-afternoon, the commodity complex crept higher as the USD stabilized.  Broadly speaking risk assets (CONTEXT) led the equity market lower into lunch and then stabilized this afternoon - holding stocks off from further deterioration. An up-day for HYG (the high-yield bond ETF) - seemingly on the back of HY-HYG arbitrage more than asset rotation - and the craziness in the vol complex (VXX vs TVIX) somewhat supported SPY on the day but we note that ES (the S&P 500 e-mini futures contract) was unable to break above its VWAP meaningfully the entire day. Treasuries sold off from early in the US day session but only very marginally as 30Y remains -4bps on the week while the rest of the curve is unch to 1bps lower in yield only.

As the rumor (and denial) of the potential release of the SPR washed out Crude and Brent prices last week, only to recover within 24 hours, we wonder if this was all the bang for the buck that these kind of pre-announcements will get. With the majority of crude reserves based in the US and product reserves based in Europe and spare capacity falling as OPEC picks up production even as Iran backs off, Morgan Stanley notes that the maximum stocks drawdown of the SPR in month 1 could average 14.4mmb/d (10.4mmb/d  of crude and 4.0mmb/d of products) which is enough to mitigate flows passing through the Strait of Hormuz (according to the IEA). However with only 90 days of cover at these rates, it is hardly the 'solution' to even the briefest of geopolitical disruptions. This perhaps explains the price action of previous SPR announcements, which varies by crude benchmark, but holds prices lower for a maximum of two weeks. Most notably, the greatest price drops on the SPR announcement tend to occur in the first 2-3 days at which point the term structure starts to increase once again. Louisiana Light tends to be hit the most followed by Brent and then WTI but the rebound is just as aggressive and we wonder if last week's rumor was merely a strawman to see just what impact was possible (we dropped 2-3% or so) and recovered rapidly compared to the 4-5% drop in June during the Arab Spring release (which was the largest release in the last 20 years).

Without a doubt, retail has fallen in love with corporate bonds.  Fund flows were originally into mutual funds, and have shifted more and more into the ETF’s.  The ETF’s are gaining a greater institutional following as well – their daily trading volumes cannot be ignored, and for the high yield space, many hedgers believe it mimics their portfolio far better than the CDS indices. The investment grade market looks extremely dangerous right now as the rationale for investing in corporate bonds – spreads are cheap – and the investment vehicles – yield based products. With corporate bonds spreads (investment grade and high yield) already reflecting a lot of the move in equities, it will be critical to see how well they can withstand the pressure from the treasury markets.

UPDATE: The UK outlook change has had little reaction so far: TSY yield down 1-2bps, gold/silver bounced up a little, and a small drop in GBP.

While most of the talk will be about the drop in precious metals today, the sell-off in Treasuries is of a much larger relative magnitude and yet equities broadly ignored this re-risking 'signal'. At almost 2.5 standard deviations, today's 10Y rate jump (closing it above the 200DMA for the first time in eight months) trumps the 1.3 standard deviation drop in Gold prices - taking prices back to mid-January levels. According to our data (h/t JL) for only the 14th time in the last five years (and not seen for 16 months) Treasury yields rose significantly and stocks fell as the broad gains in yesterday's financials (on the JPM rip) were held on to at the ETF level but not for Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup (who gave all the knee-jerk reaction back). Tech led the way as AAPL surged once again (though faltered a few times intraday) having now completed back-to-back unfilled gap-up-openings. Credit and equity were generally in sync until mid afternoon when the up-in-quality rotation took over and stocks and high-yield sold off (notably HYG - the high-yield bond ETF underperformed all day long) while investment grade credit rallied to multi-month tights. VIX bounced higher (notably more than the S&P would have implied) recovering to Monday's closing levels and back above 15%. The Treasury sell-off was 'balanced' in terms of risk-on/-off by the strength in the USD (and modest weakness in FX carry pairs as JPY's weakness was largely in sync with the rest of the majors - hinting its was a USD story). Oil and Copper both lost ground (as did Silver - the most on the day) though they tracked more in line with USD strength than the PMs.

While WTI hovers around $105.5 (slightly underperforming USD strength), Brent has notably outperformed with the Brent-WTI spread now edging towards $20 (from under $15 two weeks ago). Given the increasing tension, we thought it useful to get a grasp of just what an oil-supply shock means. BNP points out that in all but one of the historical oil price shocks of the last 40 years, equities have notably underperformed oil (understandably) but the higher the oil price rise, the higher the chance of negative absolute returns for stocks. We also note that oil prices tend to rise in anticipation of the crisis and then explode (so arguing that we are discounting an event is proved moot) and the impact (in lost supply) from closing the Straits of Hormuz is an order of magnitude larger than the next five largest events. Regionally, positioning favors the middle-eastern oil producers obviously with Asian EM nations set to suffer dramatically worse than DMs.

It would appear, given the actions and rhetoric of the last week or so, that global central bank printing presses have been switched to 'pause' mode and allowed to cool as implicit inflation 'energy' rears its economic-growth-dragging head around the world (as the bears told us earlier). Whether this leads to a slow grind higher or a tactical correction is the question Morgan Stanley considers in a recent note and their answer is that bullish sentiment, 'under-appreciated' risks, and 'tranquil' markets justify a cautious asset allocation. The focus has switched much more to growth, likely why we have not seen a greater deterioration post-printing yet, but this leaves the market much more sensitive to data surprises (as the backstop of QE has been removed for now). Simply put, we tend to agree with MS' view (given our previous discussions of the volatility surface) that as event and growth risks linger, and with valuations no longer cheap in most cases, expectations of a continued grind higher without a tactical correction are overly confident.

The ever-so-popular high-yield bond ETF, HYG, is suffering its biggest 3-day drop since Thanksgiving as higher beta assets are underperforming and the up-in-quality and up-in-capital-structure trade gathers pace post LTRO 2. Even with last week's ex-divi date, we note that this loss of the last 2-3 days wipes out the yield that was 'reached for' of the last 2-3 months. It seems all too easy to buy high-yield bonds when they are on the rise but underlying that ETF is a portfolio of 'junk' assets - some better and some worse obviously - that are increasingly being driven top-down by the fast-money action in this newfound ETF's liquidity (as dealer inventories dwindle). This leaves them prone to just-as-fast exits as the secondary high yield bond market remains 'illiquid' away from benchmark size and ETF-bound assets providing little underlying 'pricing' evidence of market value. This is the largest underperformance of the high-yield market relative to the equity market since the recent rally began.

Just like the first time around, the net gain from the LTRO when taking into account rolling off instruments, will be lower than the Gross amount. How much? According to SocGen, the final number by which the ECB's deposit account will increase will be about €210 billion less than the overhead number. From SocGen's Lauren Rosborough: "The LTRO outcome: €529.53bio was allocated to 800 institutions (compared with €489.19bio allocated to 523 institutions in Dec). The net increase, according to our economists, is €311bio (adjusted for yesterday’s MRO reduction, 3m LTRO allotment this morning, and the roll-off of the 3m and 6m LTROs tomorrow). The allocation was above our and at the upper end of the market range of expectations. After a brief and limited positive risk move (AUD/USD spiked to 1.0857), currencies are broadly unchanged and the EUR/USD is lower, possibly reflecting positioning unwinds. The LTRO outcome opens the way for further positive risk moves (high-beta, non-Japan Asia, lower DXY) but recent price action suggests to us that the rally is fatigued." Net: this means that following settlement, European banks will park not €500 billion but up to €810 billion with the ECB, on which they will collect 25 bps (while paying 1%, aka inverse carry as described here first). It also means that in three years Europe's bank will have to not only pay the ECB €1 trillion in case (assuming there is no perpetual rollover of the LTRO, which there will be), but also delever by another €2.5 billion, for net asset drop of €3.5 trillion. Good luck building up shareholder equity by the same amount to offset unchanging liabilities.

The “Placebo Effect” is fascinating. In a typical drug testing trial, one group of patients will receive the actual drug being tested, and a “control” group will be given an “inert” medicine (or “sugar pill”) that shouldn’t do anything for the patient, but the patient doesn’t know that. So much of what I find wrong about “economics” is that it masquerades as far more of a science than it actually is. It doesn’t have theories that can be “tested” in a real world, where 2 similar situations are treated differently to see which “treatment” works better. Each economy and each situation is so different that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine why policies failed or what should have been done differently. It is possible to come up with reasonable ideas and theories of what could have been done or should have been done, but they are only theories. The systems are so complex that finding situations with similar starting conditions with similarly motivated entities involved is simply impossible to find. The fact that so much of our policy seems to be based on research into what should have been done in the Great Depression and what has been seen in Japan is frankly scary. There is no way to “know” how the Great Depression would have turned out with a different set of policies. We can make conjectures, but that is all they are – conjectures. The LTRO was designed to support the market, the market is up, so the LTRO must be working. That at least is the logic many investors are applying. They see the improvement in sovereign debt yields, the avalanche of “positive” (if unfounded) headlines, and the relentless march higher of the stock market. So the plan is working? Not so fast.

As the Greek PSI deal rears its ugly head on our screens once again with Merkel, Schaeuble, and Papademos all pulling from one angle or another (and Dallara disquietingly silent in his uselessness), BNP created a simple flowchart of the various steps and probabilities of participation rates, retroactive embedded CACs, CDS triggers, and actual debt reduction that may (or may not) occur in the next week or two. The price action in Greek CDS and Bonds strongly suggest the CDS will trigger (as we have been vehemently explaining for weeks/months now) but there is a long way between here and there.