That after last year's abysmal performance on Wall Street, best summarized by the following quarterly JPMorgan Investment Banking revenue and earnings chart, bonuses season would be painful should not surprise anyone. But hardly anyone expected it to be quite this bad. The WSJ reports that Morgan Stanley, likely first of many, will cap cash bonuses at $125,000 and "will defer the portion of any bonus past $125,000 until December 2012 and December 2013" with bigger 'sacrifices' to be suffered by the executive committee which, being held accountable for the collapse in its stock price, will defer their entire bonuses for 2011. Morgan Stanley is likely just the beginning: "As banks report fourth-quarter results this month and make bonus decisions for 2011, total compensation is likely to be the lowest since 2008." This means that once Goldmanites get their numbers later this week, we will likely see a mass exodus for hedge funds which remain the only oasis of cash payouts on Wall Street. Alas, unlike the Bank Holding Companies, a series of bad decisions will result in hedge fund closure, as the TBTF culture will never penetrate the stratified air of Greenwich, CT. And with bonuses capped at about $80K after taxes, or barely enough to cover the running tab at the local Genlteman's venue, the biggest loser will be the state and city of New York, both of which are about to see their tax revenues plummet. And since banker pay is responsible for a substantial portion of Federal tax revenue, look for Federal tax withholding data in the first few months of 2012 to get very ugly, making America even more responsible on debt issuance, and likely implying the yet to be re-expanded by $1.2 trillion debt ceiling will be breached just before the Obama election making it into the biggest talking point of the election cycle.
As volumes this year in stock markets remain significantly below last year's but high yield bond ETF inflows reach record highs, TrimTabs offers some context for the massive relative flows of real cash into checking and savings accounts versus stock and bond mutual fund and ETFs. Not-Charles-Biderman, otherwise known as David Santschi of the now-infamous Bay Area backdrop, explains the incredible statistic that in the first 11 months of last year investors poured more than eight times more money into checking and savings accounts than into Fed-inspired risk assets in general. Even with rates ultra-low, the Fed's efforts to drive speculative flows is dwarfed by investors' aggregate sense of the reality of our tenuous situation as a massive $889bn was poured carefully into mattresses while a measly $109bn went into risk-worthy assets (including bonds). As Santschi concludes, as long as most investors keep hiding most of their money away, the economy is unlikely to get off to the races anytime soon and while we agree from a consumptive demand perspective, any recovery will only be truly sustainable via savings which are being desperately drawn-down by a need to maintain standards of living that are perhaps too much to expect.
Today's weak ADP was the first indication of why Wall Street may need to promptly revise its NFP consensus for Friday following last month's blowout 283,000 number. And while that number is legendary in its total irrelevance and complete lack of correlation to what the BLS reports, a more credible analysis of why NFP will likely come in lower than consensus comes from TrimTabs, which says that "Fed-fueled inflation in April has put breaks on consumption." The key culprit, and the main reason why the dollar just plunged again, is the realization that the economy has once again failed to restart the virtuous loop of trillions in monetary stimulus becoming a virtuous loop. And, as before, the only outcome will be more QEasing, and another massive spike up in commodities once Wall Street once again well delayed, realizes this is inevitable (as we have been claiming since January).
When it comes to following the trail of money, capital flows specialist TrimTabs has traditionally focused on the stock market. In the past, TrimTabs' Charles Biderman has discussed how according to any reasonable calculations, there appears to be a key buyer missing among the usual market participant suspects, leading Biderman to conclude that the Fed may be buying stocks directly (or indirectly through Citadel as the case may be). To our surprise, in its most recent release, TrimTabs takes a look at the buyers in the gold market, and ends up with the same question: "Gold prices hit a record high in nominal terms for the second consecutive day. We are not sure who is driving up prices." The speculative conclusion: "Are central bankers loading up on gold as they crank up the printing presses and keep interest rates ridiculously low?" Of course, at first glance this would be preposterous as it has long been accepted that for the Fed a jump in surge prices is a very adverse development. Well, is it? Traditionally rising gold prices have been merely indicative of abnormally high inflation, which for the Fed was a "bad" thing in the past. Not so much any more, or at least since the advent of the "wealth effect" experiment. Recall that it is now the Fed's "goal" to give the impression of inflation (and reality for those who eat and use energy). This is based on Bernanke's false assumption that inflation is much more easily controllable (15 minutes...) than deflation. So while on the surface this may appear to be a preposterous claim, in reality there is nothing that prohibits a gold price surge in the context of the Fed's third mandate.
After yesterday TrimTabs Charles Biderman made it all too clear who runs the stock market, today the same firm exposes the system's dirty socialist core: "In a research note, TrimTabs highlights that government social benefits —including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance—were equal to 35% of all private and public wages and salaries in the 12 months ended January, up from 10% in 1960 and 21% in 2000. “We have no quibble with the view that the U.S. economy is expanding at a moderate pace,” says Madeline Schnapp, Director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs. “But we believe Wall Street does not fully appreciate the degree to which growth depends on government support.” Schanpp's conclusion: QE3 is inevitable, leaving aside debt monetization concerns, as without it the US welfare state will collapse. DXY: meet 50, just in time for the NYSE Borse to extends its rollup with the Zimbaber stock exchange.
During today's little CNBC circlejerk shindig, Ben Bernanke, in defense of his disastrous, and now deadly policies, once again confirmed that the (one and only) benefit from QE2 has been to boost stock prices. Oddly enough, there was no mention of surging energy, food and commodity prices. Nor did Liesman ask the Chairman about 43.2 million Americans on foodstamps, just as he did not ask the dictator of the centralized ponzi for his comments on why at last count 50 people in Tunisia were dead protesting, among other, record food prices and cost of living.
It was the night before Christmas Eve, and CNBC trucked out TrimTabs' Charles Biderman to a de minimis audience, knowing full well that a man with his understanding of money flows would very likely repeat his statement from last year, that there is no real, valid explanation for the inexorable move in stocks higher, as equity money flows in 2010 were decidedly negative, and any explanation of the upward melt up would need to account for Fed intervention (and no-volume HFT offer-lifting feedback loops but that is a story for another day). A year after the first scandalous report was published, TrimTabs is sticking with its story: "If the money to boost stock prices by almost $9 trillion from the March
2009 lows did not come from the traditional players, it had to have come
from somewhere else. We believe that place is the Fed. By funneling
trillions of dollars in cash to the primary dealers in exchange for
debt, the Fed has given Wall Street lots of firepower to ramp up the
prices of risk assets, including equities." And, wisely, Biderman, just like Zero Hedge, asks what happens when the buying one day, some day, ends: "...stock prices will be higher by the time
QE2 ends, but economic growth will not be sustainable without massive
government support. Then even more QE will be needed, and stock prices
could keep rising for a while. In our opinion, however, no amount of QE
will be able to keep the current stock market bubble from bursting
eventually." Ergo our call earlier that Bernanke has at best +/- 150 days to assuage the market's fear that QE2 is ending (not to mention that we have a huge economic recovery, right Jan Hatzius? We don't need no stinking QE...). Therefore the best Bernanke can hope for is to buy some additional time. At the end of the day, the biggest problem is that the massive slack in the economy means that LSAP will have to continue for a long, long time, before the virtuous circle of self-sustaining growth can even hope to take over. By then bond yields may very well be high enough that Ron Paul will demands someone finally bring Paul Volcker out of the fridge.
Update: Charles Biderman sends us an addendum to his earlier CNBC appearance...
A year after Charles Biderman's provocative post first appeared on Zero Hedge, in which he asked just who is doing all the buying of stocks as the money was obviously not coming from retail investors (and came up with one very notable suggestion), today Maria Bartiromo invited the TrimTabs head once again (conveniently in CNBC's lowest rated show, during Christmas Eve eve, at a time when perhaps 5 people would be watching) in an interview which disclosed that after more than a year of searching, Biderman still has no idea who actually buying. In response to Bartiromo's question if the retail investor, who left after the flash crash (thank you SEC), Biderman responds what every Zero Hedger has known for 33 weeks: "Retail investors are not coming back to the US. Those investors that are investing are buying global equities and are buying commodities. We are seeing lots money going into commodity ETF funds: gold, silver..." and the even more unpleasant summation: "individuals have been selling, companies are net selling, insider selling and new offerings are swamping any buyback and any cash M&A activity since QE 2 was announced. Pension funds and hedge funds don't really have that much cash to invest. So what nobody's asking is what happens when QE 2 stops: if the only buyer is the Fed, and the Fed stops buying, I don't know what is going to happen...When I was on your show a year ago I was saying the same thing: we can't figure out who is doing the buying it has to be the government, and people said I was nuts. Now the government is admitting it is rigging the market." Cue Bartiromo jaw dropping.
With just one month left in the quarter, most hedge funds continue to underperform the market, not to mention that the vast majority continues to be under their high water mark (most notably Citadel). And with fickle LPs, unbound by lock ups courtesy of the 2008 crash, knowing all too well they can now move their money with the facility of a HFT frontrunner churning AMZN one thousand times a second, threatening redemptions unless something changes in the last month of the quarter, hedge funds are, for lack of a better word, panicking. Yet as we have long been demonstrating, the vicious loop of high correlations and mutual fund withdrawals means that alpha generation is gone the way of the dodo. Which means that HFs will now seek to actively lever up into the market to chase the beta wave over September like never before. This is indeed confirmed by TrimTabs latest Hedge Fund Flow Report, which finds that the percentage of HF managers expecting to raise their leverage exiting August is 21.2%, the highest in 4 months, and possibly all of 2010, and triple the 7.7% responding affirmatively in May. And as riding a leveraged beta wave is nothing but a coin toss on the market with dire consequences if wrong, look for market volatility in September to hit multi-month highs, especially if macro economic conditions continue to deteriorate and investors are forced to buy against the grain.
TrimTabs does a simple yet elegant analysis that seeks to explain why US final demand is not only sluggish but declining, and is ultimately the reason why the US government needs to consistently pump more and more capital in the economy to keep GDP at best flat. TrimTabs focuses on the "consumer spendables" indicator - It consists of the sum of three components: 1. After-tax income from wages and salaries; 2. After-tax income from non-wage sources, such as capital gains, dividends, and interest; 3. Cash harvested from home equity when mortgages are refinanced. As TrimTabs shows, and this should come as a surprise to nobody, "much of the economic growth in the middle of the previous decade was fueled by an explosion of consumer debt. Consumers treated their homes like automatic teller machines—cash-out refinancings topped out at $804 billion in the four quarters ended in Q2 2006—and they borrowed freely on low-rate auto loans and credit cards given to almost anyone who could fog a mirror. Now that the era of easy consumer credit is over, the economy is resetting to a lower level of activity. We believe the interventions of the Fed and the government to try to head off this adjustment will do more harm in the long run than the adjustment itself." In other words the ongoing debate on whether the US is undergoing inflation or deflation is moot - the primary driver continues to be deleveraging, as Rick Santelli likes to shout on occasion. And all the other monetary phenomena are merely a side-effect. Alas, as long as deleveraging is the primary driver in the economy, nothing else matters: it has long been our contention that deleveraging must run its course. However, the Fed will not let that happen, and in doing so, it will attempt the last thing in its arsenal - in essence, suicide the economy, by destroying all faith in the actual medium of monetary exchange. At that point inflation, deflation and/or stagflation will be the last thing on anyone's mind.
We have speculated that the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury could be allowing a "buyer" to accumulate stock index futures to boost stock prices. Perhaps the "buyer" has stopped buying. We know that the S&P 500 has dropped 6.6% since the close on January 20, the day before President Obama announced a plan to restrict proprietary trading by banks. Moreover, the S&P 500 fell on seven of those 11 trading days.
TrimTabs' Charles Biderman discusses the flow of funds, and the interest rate outlook for 2010: nothing too outlandish - the Treasury bubble thesis revisited, as well as the biggest issue of all - the roll (much more on this from Marla soon). Also some observations on the interplay of money markets and alternative funds, extensively discussed here. Also, according to TCW's Chief Global Strategist the treasury bubble will burst in a few months, coupled with a collapse of the dollar. What this means is that rates will surge. What this also means is that once rates surge, equity values will be whacked as the cost of capital will no longer be zero (sorry Zimbabwe Ben, but you are completely wrong - a cost of capital of zero is the number one reason for pretty much all bubbles). So what do futures do? Up, up, up. The stocks-bonds divergence trade is alive, schizophrenic, utterly insane and well.
Are Federal Reserve and U.S. Government Rigging Stock Market? We Have No Evidence They Are, but They Could Be. We Do Not Know Source of Money That Pushed Market Cap Up $6+ Trillion since Mid-March. - TrimTabs
Some More On Insider Selling And Money On The Sidelines, Compliments of TrimTabs And Cigar AficionadoSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 09/01/2009 16:32 -0400
It seems one can never get enough of Charles Biderman. Also, Charles, once again, destroys the money on the sidelines fallacy. That being said, the cigar dude (apparently Murdoch has a pretty loose indoor smoking policy) should probably spar with WalStreetPro 2 instead of being on Fox Biz equivalent of the decabox, even though the man is spot on in his observations.
"Insider selling is 30x insider buying, while corporate stock buybacks are non-existent. Companies are saying they don't want to touch their own stocks."
"I don't know where the money is coming from to keep the markets from not plunging."
One can offer some suggestions.