Rate of Change

Over the years, Jim O'Neill, former Chairman of GSAM, rose to fame for pegging the BRIC acronym (no such luck for the guy who came up with the far more applicable and accurate PIIGS, or STUPIDS, monikers, but that's neither here nor there). O'Neill was correct in suggesting, about a decade ago, that the rise of the middle class in these countries and their purchasing power would prove to be a major driving force in the world economy. O'Neill was wrong in his conclusion as to what the ultimate driver of said purchasing power would be: as it has become all too clear with the entire world drowning in debt (and recently China), it was pure and simply debt. O'Neill was horribly wrong after the Great Financial Crisis when he suggested that it would be the BRIC nation that would push the world out of depression. To the contrary, not only is the world not out of depression as the fourth consecutive year of deteriorating economic data confirms (long since disconnected with the actual capital markets), but it is the wanton money (and bad debt) creation by the central banks of the developed world (as every instance of easing by China has led to an immediate surge of inflation in the domestic market) that has so far allowed the day of reckoning, and waterfall debt liquidations, to take place (and certainly don't look at the stock index performance of China, Brazil, India or Russia). Despite his errors, he has been a good chap having taken much of the abuse piled upon him here at Zero Hedge somewhat stoically, as well as a fervent ManU supporter, certainly at least somewhat of a redeeming quality. Attached please find his final, farewell letter as Chairman of the Goldman Asset Management division, as he moves on to less tentacular pastures.

Now that we have the first estimate of Q1 GDP growth in both rate of change and absolute current dollar terms ($16,010 billion), we can finally assign the appropriate debt number, which we know on a daily basis and which was $16,771.4 billion as of March 31, to the growth number. The end result: as of March 31, 2013, the US debt/GDP was 104.8%, up from 103% as of December 31, 2012 or a debt growth rate that would make the most insolvent Eurozone nation blush. There was a time when people were concerned about this unsustainable trajectory, but then there was an infamous excel error, and now nobody cares anymore.

How does it really work under irredeemable paper? It's more complicated than under gold.

With European stocks and bonds, US bonds, commodities and precious metals all hinting at problems, the near-all-time-highs levels of the US equity market remain a mirage. We discussed here whether we had seen 'peak economic recovery' and today we extend that analysis. The point of this exercise is to allow your brain to juxtapose visual data to the ongoing mainstream diatribe of economic recovery. Evidence continues to mount that we have seen the peak of activity for the current economic cycle.  The implications of such an occurrence are broad and suggests that the Fed's liquidity driven interventions, and zero interest rate policy, may have well seen the end of their effectiveness.

In what may be a first in at least 3-4 months, instead of the usual levitating grind higher on no news and merely ongoing USD carry, tonight for the first time in a long time, futures have drifted downward, pushed partially by declining funding carry pairs EURUSD and USDJPY without a clear catalyst. There was no explicit macro news to prompt the overnight weakness, although a German 10 year auction pricing at a record low yield of 1.28% about an hour ago did not help. Perhaps the catalyst was a statement by the Chinese sovereign wealth fund's Jin who said that the "CIC is worried about US, EU and Japan quantitative easing" - although despite this and despite the reported default of yet another corporate bond by LDK Solar, the second such default after Suntech Power which means the Chinese corporate bond bubble is set to burst, the SHCOMP was down only 1 point. The Nikkei rebounded after strong losses on Monday but that was only in sympathy with the US price action even as the USDJPY declined throughout the session.

The recent plunge in gold prices below $1500 an ounce has suddenly awoken, well, just about everyone.  The "gold bugs" are yelling that it is a conspiracy theory by the Fed while the stock market bulls say it is a sign that the Fed has achieved its goal of creating economic growth.  Unfortunately, both arguments, while great for headlines, are wrong. The real concern for investors should not be the fall of gold - but the overall stock market.  With investors fully allocated to the markets - the lurking correction therein is potentially far more dangerous to portfolios than the current fall in gold simply due to weighting differences. Even with earnings hurdles moved substantially lower in recent weeks it may not be enough to offset the softening global economy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is what gold, commodities and interest rates are really telling us.

Today, the very orders that make HFT a beneficial trading strategy and one worth the massive capex, are controlled by the exchanges.  That's the difference between this form of "technological advancement" and those of the past, the direct ownership of the critical intersection between information processing and order execution.

Tax refunds, which can be an important source of cash flow for consumers early in the year, have totaled $20bn less year-to-date than refunds in 2012. Goldman Sachs notes that this is the equivalent of nearly 1% of disposable income over that period, and some consumer-oriented businesses have attributed lackluster sales in late January and early February to lower refund payments. Balancing the possibility of a small amount of additional catch-up with the possibility that some of the decline versus 2012 is fundamentally driven by the effects of tax law changes or other factors, the upshot is that Goldman believes the cumulative gap of around $20bn looks likely to persist. Since the current rate of change in tax refunds looks similar to last year's, this should not weigh further on consumer cash flow. However, it also implies that we should not expect the consumer to receive much of a tailwind from delayed tax refunds in March or April. It does make one wonder a little if this marginal cash-flow is the reason for the extremely unusual cyclical strength and weakness we have seen in macro data for the last few years.

Central bankers have been counting on "the wealth effect" to lift their economies out of the post-2009 global meltdown slump. The wealth effect concept is simple: flooding the economy with credit and zero-interest money boosts the value of assets such as housing, stocks and bonds. Those owning the assets feel wealthier, and thus more inclined to borrow and spend more money. This new spending creates more demand which then leads employers to hire more employees. Unfortunately for the bottom 90% who don't own enough stocks to feel any wealth effect, the central bankers got it wrong: wages don't rise as a result of the wealth effect, they rise from an increased production of goods and services. Despite unprecedented money-printing, zero interest rates and vast credit expansion, real wages have declined.

This recent release of the manufacturing and industrial production data added further support to our view that the much touted economic recovery has yet to manifest itself.  The latest data showed that manufacturing in January fell back but after strong gains in December and November.  However, it is important to remember that the gains at the end of 2012 were driven by the effects of Hurricane Sandy and the "Fiscal Cliff."  That ramp up in November and December is likely to leave a void in demand in the coming months - so January's weakness is likely a return to a more normalized trend. What is clear, however, is that the economic data is not markedly improving.  While monthly data points will remain volatile it is the trend of the data that is most telling about macroeconomic future.  Currently, that outlook remains one of a "struggle through" environment at best. The belief, currently, is that the economy in the U.S. can decouple from the rest of the globe and act as an island of economic prosperity.  With 40% of corporate profits tied to international exposure it is unlikely that the U.S. can remain decoupled from the rest of the global community for long. 

The ongoing message from the mainstream media, analysts and most economists is that the economy has turned the corner and we are set for substantially stronger growth in the coming year.  While that sounds great on the surface the economic data has yet to hint at such a robust recovery.  What is worrisome is that CNBC has started using the term "Goldilocks economy" again which is what we were hearing as we approached the peak of the market in early 2008.  As David Rosenberg pointed out in his morning missive: "Maybe, it's just this:  so long as there is a positive sign in front of any economic metric, no matter how microscopic, all is good.  After all, you can't be 'sort of in recession' - it's like being pregnant... either you are or you are not." The bottom line is that ex-artificial stimulus, and other fiscal supports, there is little in the way of an economic recovery currently going on.  In order for the economy to reach "escape velocity" it will be on the back of sharply rising employment and wages which are needed to prime consumer spending.  This is not happening as the the gap between wages and rising cost of living continues to drive the consumer to shore up that shortfall with more debt.  

There have been several articles as of late discussing that the next great secular bull market has arrived. However, the reality is that this cycle is currently unlike anything that we have potentially witnessed in the past.  With massive central bank interventions, artificially suppressed interest rates, sub-par economic growth, high unemployment and elevated stock market prices it is likely that the current secular bear market may be longer than the historical average. No matter how you slice the data - the simple fact is that we are still years away from the end of the current secular bear market. The mistake that analysts, economists and the media continue to make is that the current ebbs and flows of the economy are part of a natural, and organic, economic cycle. If this was the case then there would be no need for continued injections of liquidity into the system in an ongoing attempt to artificially suppress interest rates, boost housing or inflate asset markets. From market-to-GDP ratios, cyclical P/Es, misconstrued earnings yields, and the analogs to previous Fed-blow bubbles, we appear near levels more consistent with cyclical bull market peaks rather than where secular bear markets have ended.

No problemo....

Things change fast in the technology world. 

The personal income and spending report Friday morning left a lot to be desired for those expecting a stronger economic environment soon.  However, the report fell well in line with what we have been expecting over the past several months as the drag on real wages and incomes have weighed on the consumer; and with personal consumption making up more the 70% of the economy, changes to employment, incomes or credit has an immediate and significant impact to growth. When it comes to the economy, and particularly the ongoing recession watch that has nearly become a sporting event, it is real (inflation adjusted) incomes that matter.  In the most recent report we see that real personal incomes declined for the month from $11,546 to $11,532 billion for the month reflecting a -.12 change. Economic expansion since the last recession has been hovering around a flat line for the past seven months. The next couple of months will be very telling about the strength of the underlying economy.  The manufacturing data continues to point to further economic weakness, hiring plans have deteriorated and the main drivers of economic growth have all stagnated. While we can hope to get lucky that things will work out for the best - "hope" rarely works out as an investment strategy.