Volatility

With Europe, the BBA, and virtually everyone shocked, shocked, that the global bank cabal schemed and colluded for years to manipulate interest rates, so far only America appears relatively blase, and totally ignorant, about the issue. Perhaps it is because the first bank exposed in the manipulation scheme so far is European, perhaps because it is just tired of all the endless crime coming out of the criminal complex known as Wall Street. It is unclear. Then again, America will soon have its own manipulation scandals to deal with: and if it is not the US BBA member banks, all of whom were just as guilty as Barclays, and the only question is which bank will be the sacrificial scapegoat whose CEO will have to demonstratively depart (to warmer, non-extradition climes), it will be the following story from Bloomberg which will likely pick up much more steam over the next weeks and months, detailing how the bank which just barely avoided a triple notch downgrade (wink wink) has had previous dealings with the very same rating agencies seeking to, picture this, artificially inflate ratings! So to summarize: Fed manipulates capital markets, HFT manipulates bid ask spreads, "self-policing" CDS pricing market groups fudge the prices on trillions in Credit Default Swaps, bank cabals collude and manipulate short-term interest rates, and now banks are confirmed to have manipulated the ratings on tens of billions of bonds using monetary incentives and threats. Is there anything in this "market" that was fair over the past several decades, and was actual price discovery ever actually possible? Because by now it should be very clear going forward all the things that actually make a free and fair market are forever gone, and that without endless fraud and manipulation by all the market participants who realize that anyone defecting the ponzi group means immediate and terminal losses for all, and all those calls for an S&P 400 would actually prove to be overly optimistic.

The broad theme of buying stocks because they are cheap - as evidenced by the dividend yield's premium to US Treasury yields - seems to fall apart a little once one look at a long-run history of the behavior of these two apples-to-unicorns yield indications. Forget the risky vs risk-free comparisons, forget the huge mismatch in mark-to-market volatility, and forget the huge differences in max draw-downs that we have discussed in the past; prior to WWII, the average S&P 500 dividend yield was 136bps over the 10Y Treasury yield and while today's 'equity valuation' is its 'cheapest' since the 1950s relative to Bernanke's ZIRP-driven bond market; the 'old' normal suggests that this time is no different at all and merely a reversion to more conservative times - leaving stocks far from cheap.

From bull market gods and goddesses of the 1980s and 1990s, stock analysts now preside over a much more modest kingdom.  Nic Colas, of ConvergEx notes that the world has moved on to new golden calves, from currencies (with great leverage) to exchange traded funds (with generally less volatility) to macro analysts (the current Zeuses and Heras).  This even extends to the world of the retail investor – there are far more Google searches in the U.S. for "Storage auctions" (246,000/month) than for "stock research" (just 33,000/month), and the rate of decline resembles a fast-decaying radioactive particle. With asset price correlations near 90% for a wide range of investment choices, the on-off switch to market direction sits in Washington, Frankfurt, Beijing, and other centers of political and central bank power. Nic believes stock research will make a comeback for both technological (systemically delivering information to algorithmic traders) and cyclical reasons - as old-school stock research, with sector analysts, is ultimately tied to the fortunes of the equity market. And for analysts and stock market investors, that inflection point cannot come too soon.

Between 'Twist+', his belief that Germany will 'blink' leaving any eurozone breakup/exit unlikely this year, and confidence that the US (Fed) and China (fiscal and monetary) will attempt once again to pump things up, Bob Janjuah (of Nomura) expect to see a risk-on phase that lifts the S&P - possibly climbing the wall of worry back up to the 1400s by late July or early August. His stop-loss (which would be very bearish in his view) is a weekly close under 1267 for the S&P. And then? He would look to position for an extremely bearish risk-off phase over late August through to November or December. The drivers of this extremely bearish expected phase are not new: overly bullish positioning and sentiment; weak global growth, not just in the eurozone but also in the US and the BRICs; the next leg of crisis in the ongoing eurozone debacle in my view; and of course the looming US fiscal crisis, which in Bob's view is not even ‘slightly’ priced into markets, but where he feels the probability of a crisis is close to 75%. His forecast for this extremely bearish risk-off phase over late Q3 and Q4 is that the S&P 500 trades below the low of last year, perhaps as low as 1000. Into 2013-14, I am still concerned that my long-standing 800 S&P500 target will be hit, but it will not be a straight line - QE3 will provide a short but sharp risk-on relief to markets. But as the bearded bear forecasts, once its ‘benefits’ subside (in weeks) it will be the failure of this QE3 to ‘fix’ things that, I fear, will open the door to 800 S&P.

There are now reports that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is likely to clamp down on gold bullion coin sales by banks as the rising bullion imports are adding pressure to the current account deficit and weakening the rupee.  

Western central banks and mints will not be clamping down on gold bullion coin sales in the near future as demand for gold and silver bullion coins fell in Q1 2012.

Everyone and their dog is by now well aware of the stress in Europe - and implicitly the chance for a major tail-risk event occurring. Yet, as Citi's Steven Englander notes, the amount of tail risk that is actually priced in is astonishingly small. Whether it is risk-reversals (which are skewing increasingly towards EUR strength relative to the USD) or Digital options (which are essentially the market's oddsmaker for a big - 15% or more - move in the currency), it appears investors are gravitating to a view that the sovereign crisis will play out in debt markets more than in currency markets. We agree with Englander when he notes "this looks to be an extremely hopeful view of how events will play out". Given the German unwillingness (and quite possibly inability) to underwrite the rest of the euro zone, the risk of contagion and EUR weakness may be much bigger than what is now priced in.

Some people know Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena as one of the biggest banks in Italy (lately best known for being either halted down, about 90% of the time, or up, the remainder) with 3,000 branches, 33,000 employees and 4.5 million customers. Others know it for being the world's oldest surviving bank, founded in 1472 by the magistrate of the then city-state of Siena. Most will henceforth know it as the first Italian bank bailed out in 2012 using the old 2009 ponzi scheme known as "Tremonti bonds", whereby the bank sells bonds to a guaranteed buyer - the Italian government - receiving critical cash to continue operating in exchange for, well, promises, and sharing its balance sheet with the much more "viable" sovereign, whose bonds were trading above 6% at last check. The initial bailout bid: €1 billion in Tremonti bonds with speculation the number will be realistically up to €4 billion. The final number: much, much higher, but it likely won't be known for at least days. Which incidentally is an event which was largely expected. Recall on June 13 we wrote: "Forget Three Months: Italy May Have Two Weeks Tops, As "It Already Is Where Spain Is Heading." It is now 13 days later and the bailouts have begun.

We have discussed the use of correlation (cross-asset-class and intra-asset-class) a number of times in the last few years, most recently here, as a better way to track 'fear' or greed than the traditional (and much misunderstood) VIX. As Nic Colas writes this evening, a review of asset price correlations shows that the convergence typical of 'risk-off' periods in the market is solidly underway. While we prefer to monitor the 'finer' average pairwise realized correlations for the S&P 100 - which have been rising significantly recently, Nic points out that the more coarse S&P 500 industry correlations relative to the index as a whole are up to 88% from a low of 75% back in February. In terms of assessing market health, a decline in correlation is a positive for markets since it shows investors are focused on individual sector and stock fundamentals instead of a macro “Do or die” concerns.  By that measure, we’re moving in the wrong direction, and not just because of recent decline in risk assets.  Moreover, other asset classes such as U.S. High Yield corporate bonds, foreign stocks (both emerging market and develop economies), and even some currencies are increasingly moving in lock step.  Lastly, we would highlight that average sector correlations have done a better job in 2012 of warning investors about upcoming turbulence than the closely-watched CBOE VIX Index.  Those investors looking for reliable “Buy at a bottom” indicators should add these metrics to their investment toolbox as a better 'mousetrap' than the now ubiquitous VIX.

The last few days have seen high-yield credit markets remain remarkably resilient in the face of an equity downdraft.  Both HYG (the high-yield bond ETF) and HY18 (the credit derivative spread index) have remained notably stable even as stocks have lost over 3% - and in fact intrinsics and the underlying bonds have improved in value modestly. HY bonds are much less sensitive to interest rate movements (especially at these spread levels) and so, in general, this divergence in performance is aberrant (especially with equity volatility also pushing higher in sync with stocks and not with credit). So why is high-yield credit not so weak? The answer is surprisingly simple. As we argue for weeks from the end of LTRO2, credit markets were far less sanguine than stocks and have leaked lower ever since. This 'relative' outperformance of high-yield credit over stocks appears to be nothing less than the last of the hope-premium bleeding out of stocks and re-aligning with credit's more sombre 'reality' view of the world. Given the sensitivity of HYG (and HY) to flows, and the weakness in risk assets, we would suspect that outflows will now dag both lower as they resync at these higher aggregate risk premium levels.

Beginning in 2011 the Federal Reserve begin releasing its economic forecast for the present year and two years forward covering GDP, Unemployment, and Inflation.  The question is after 18 months of forecasting - just how good has the Fed at forecasting these economic variables?  I have compiled the data from each of the releases for each category and compared it to the real figures and used a current trend analysis for future estimates.... The Fed has been slowly guiding economic forecasts lower since 2011.  The reality is that 2.6% economic growth is not a boon of economic prosperity, corporate profitability, increasing incomes or a secular bull market.  It is also not the "death of America" or the return to the stone age.  What is important to understand, as investors, is the impact on investment portfolios, expectated real rates of returns and the realization that higher levels of market volatility with more frequent "booms and busts" are here to stay.

If we pursue the line of inquiry established by Chris Martenson’s recent call to Buckle Up -- Market Breakdown in Progress, we come to these basic questions: When will the market reflect the fundamental weakness of the global economy? And when will the market finally hit bottom? Clearly, the correlation between market action and the underlying economy is weak.  While many would declare the stock market to be a “lagging indicator” of recession, even that may be overstating the connection. If we have learned anything in the past three years, it’s that weakening the dollar to foster the illusion of rising corporate profits, central bank monetary easing (QE), and central state borrow-and-spend stimulus can goose the market higher even as the underlying economy remains weak or recessionary. Will the Fed continue to support the U.S. market with QE programs every time it sags? Will QE always work as well as it did in 2010 and 2011? If the history of the deflationary-era Nikkei is any guide (and the BoJ's unprecedented monetary easing while the central government has borrowed and spent unprecedented sums on fiscal stimulus), the bottom could be a year away.

Here we come:

• MOODY'S CUTS 4 FIRMS BY 1 NOTCH
• MOODY'S CUTS 10 FIRMS' RATINGS BY 2 NOTCHES
• MOODY'S CUTS 1 FIRM BY 3 NOTCHES
• MORGAN STANLEY L-T SR DEBT CUT TO Baa1 FROM A2 BY MOODY'S
• MOODY'S CUTS MORGAN STANLEY 2 LEVELS, HAD SEEN UP TO 3
• MORGAN STANLEY OUTLOOK NEGATIVE BY MOODY'S
• MORGAN STANLEY S-T RATING CUT TO P-2 FROM P-1 BY MOODY'S
• BANK OF AMERICA L-T SR DEBT CUT TO Baa2 BY MOODY'S;OUTLOOK NEG

So the reason for the delay were last minute negotiations, most certainly involving extensive monetary explanations, by Morgan Stanley's Gorman (potentially with Moody's investor Warren Buffett on the call) to get only a two notch downgrade. And Wall Street wins again.

The revaluation that is underway now is beyond the simple scope of corporate earnings valuations, going to the very core of the system itself.  Just like the equity pricing regime (and investor expectations for equity assets) needs to adjust to the twelve-year-old bear market reality, pricing within the global banking system as a whole needs to adjust to the reality that the artificial growth of the economic textbook is not replicable.  The economic truth of 2012 is that much of the science of economics, and the foundation that gives to finance and financial pricing, was a temporal anomaly befitting only those specific conditions of that bygone era.  In other words, the entire financial world needs to reset itself outside the paradigm of pre-2008.  The secular bear market in US equities is one strand of this changing landscape, perhaps the first stirring of the collapse of the activist central bank experiment. In the end, the potential selling pressure of the dollar shortage is irresistible, no matter how “cheap” stock prices are to earnings, but none of it may matter in the grander scheme of a dramatic reset to the global system.  The inability of that global system to escape this critical state, to simply move beyond crisis and function “normally” again, demonstrates conclusively, in my opinion, the foundational transformation that is still taking place well beyond the stock bear.  Everything is a locked feedback loop of negative pressures in this age, no matter how much we want to see “value” where and how it used to exist. 

Paradigm shifts are rarely orderly, but there are warning signs.

XAU/USD Currency Chart – (Bloomberg)

Gold dipped today despite Wall Street hopes that the US Fed will embark on more QE. As we have said for some time QE3, or a new term for electronic and paper money creation, is a certainty and this will lead to inflation hedging and safe haven demand for gold. 

The relationship between two measures of risk-aversion, VIX (forward expectations of equity volatility) and Gold (forward expectations of central bank largesse), are diverging in a very pro-printing manner over the last few days. Emprically, it appears we see a rotation through three phases: a perfectly anti-correlated 'liquidation' plunge in gold prices on dramatic rises in VIX (or risk); a highly correlated period of VIX and Gold movements (as uncertainty over the binary print-and-be-saved or don't-print-and-peril process evolves); and a hopeful period of anti-correlation where Gold rises and VIX plunges on the back of further printing to the rescue. We find ourselves in the latter phase currently. It appears that VIX at a 17 handle is pricing rather notably more QE (and its implied vol compression) relative to Gold at only $1620.