This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
USD Surges By Most In 7 Months As Stocks Stumble And Bonds Bid
Keep Calm and Keep Buying. We are sure this will be the message as for the first time this year, the Dow closed the week in the red. First time in 42 years that the S&P 500 started the year up six weeks in a row... as the S&P and Nasdaq managed modest gains (thanks to AAPL's help) - making new multi-year highs as yet another high stop-run was sent out early. After testing back under 13%, VIX popped back higher in the afternoon to close the week slightly higher. However, while stocks stumbled along sideways not really doing anything - every other asset class saw significant risk-off related moves. The USD saw its biggest weekly rise in 7 months! Treasury yields dropped 6-8bps - the biggest rally in bonds in 5 weeks. High-yield credit has suffered its biggest 2-week plunge in 9 months. WTI Crude saw its biggest weekly drop in 2 months. Given the USD strength, gold performed very well (ending the week unch). Stocks remain significantly dislocated from credit, rates, and FX markets in the medium-term (all of which closed the week with a risk-off shift). Volume, amid the blizzard, was dismal today.
Been a divergent week in risk assets...
as stocks just storm away from their risk-related brother in credit...
The USD surged by its most in seven months this week!
as the EUR lost 2% against the USD this week (and JPY is unch)...
HY Credit has seen the biggest 2-week drop in nine months!
Stocks ended the week notably out of line (short-term) from risk-assets - but all of the stock buying was early as the rest of the day saw risk in general being sold (as rates and the USD rallied and credit sold off). VIX and Stocks clung close together once again but VIX term structure steepened to its highest in a month...
While tracking the optical difference between credit and equity markets is useful...
...the relationship is notably non-linear. However, Capital Context provides a more useful tactical model to ascertain the separation between stocks and credit - for now, as the charts below show - stocks are 2.5 to 3% over-valued relative to credit (but bear in mind that as and when stocks correct, credit will also be offered and the mispricing can exacerbate). For now, the S&P 500 and Russell remain notably rich... suggesting market neutral positioning for any long book.
and of course, fundamentally, things do not look too supported here...
The major indices saw some heavy blocks go through into the last few seconds and AAPL was fading off its intrday highs - but today's volume was 20% below average.
In case you were wondering what was catching stocks each time they dropped - it appears (for now) that convergence trades with the old favorite 2s10s30s Treasury butterfly have been doing well...
Charts: Bloomberg and Capital Context
Bonus Chart: It seems once again that what European banks lose, Apple gains as the two fulcrum securities of the world look to be converging once again...
»
- 11268 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Bonds up, Stocks up, USD up
will result in
Bonds down, Stocks down, USD down
whoever doesnt realise this is dumb
better enjoy the time before the big crash
Starting from 11/16/12 the S&P500 is virtually a straigt line up except for the blip at the end of the year.
Now get this...
The CAGR for the SP500 is just a bit under 50% !!!
The CAGR for the RUT is about 70% !!!!!
How sustainable is that?!?!?!?
Everyone on CNBC (including Ms. Fox) tell me this will continue for many months -- if not years!
Yes I still remember like it was yesterday when I had a large short position in 2007 and CNBS continued to cackle daily how strong the market was and cheelead every higher high.......until the music stopped
They are an excellent contrarian indicator. When everything will look great and it seems the economy will follow the stock market, watch out below. Hard to say how close we are, but if Jim Rogers thinks it's close that should worry people. On the other hand inflation could keep stocks up until the bond market crashes (and perhaps even after), that's another possibility.
And how is the S&P doing compaired to the Venezuela stockmarket?
same same I guess?
Gatoraid.
"Joe For Oil" is fucked.
Navy: Lincoln Refueling Delayed, Will Hurt Carrier Readiness
The move by the navy is the second this week involving funding for carriers. On Wednesday it announced it would delay the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the Middle East do to the ongoing budget strife bringing the total number of carriers in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to one until funding normalizes.
Ye Ole Navy can't afford fuel. Time to tell the boys it is time to attack another country. That script seems to be the most effective.I have this tinfoil taste in the back of my throat?
Fillings leaking mercury & silver?
O/T, but of interest to anyone who might need the money... Fringe Blogger Bearing offers $5.00 to the first correct guess as to WHAT that object is, whether by email (my moniker at gmail) or Comment:
"What is This?"
http://tinyurl.com/b27lez2
EDIT:
1) One guess per person
2) Contest ends 22 Feb at 11:59 PM US ET
Re Contest, "Matt C" has already won at 4:56 PM.
The answer is "Osmium". It is a 1 oz pellet.
Dollar strength is temporary. € fundamentals point to a strengthening to $1.40 with the ¥ continuing to weaken in line with Japan's economic and fiscal picture:
http://dareconomics.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/euro-stength-and-the-two-ch...
King Dollar is back, baby!
Kudlow should be happy now.
Japanese currency devaluation is "working" as evidenced by recent government trade figures. If this continues, count on Helicopter Ben to doing some major devaluing USA style, and show them Japs how it's done. Let the currency wars begin!
..........and it was 7 months ago that the DX topped.
not much left to the north
Yes but thursday was a rare orgy for the shorts which means cover.
Say it again.
Yes but thursday was a rare orgy for the shorts which means cover.
Say it again
I commented on 12-16-12, 01:50 PM #1 flow5
"We’re close to seeing the real power of OMOs. R-gDp is likely to accelerate earlier & faster than anyone now expects. The roc in M*Vt before any new stimulus is already above average. With low inflation (given some deficit resolution), Jan-Apr could be a zinger"
M1 - Jan 28 release @ $2,480.8T. This is very alarming growth. How will the Fed stop it?
We're fkd?
2012-06
,,,,,,,0.013
2012-07 ,,,,,,,0.016
2012-08 ,,,,,,,0.022
2012-09 ,,,,,,,0.025
2012-10 ,,,,,,,0.014
2012-11 ,,,,,,,0.020
2012-12 ,,,,,,,0.029
2013-01 ,,,,,,,0.034
2013-02 ,,,,,,,0.046
2013-03 ,,,,,,,0.054
2013-04 ,,,,,,,0.047
Roc's in MVt are to soar!
i will be the guy in class who admits i dont understand.....please explain.....thanks
Thanks Seasmoke....I had my hand up too.
Better water the fucker down then.....THEN THE NUKES FLY!!!!FUCK YEAH!!!!
BEANS, BUTTER and BULLETS, BITCHEZ!!!!
Contrary to economic theory, & Nobel laureate, Dr. Milton Friedman, monetary lags are not “long & variable”. The lags for monetary flows (MVt), i.e. the proxies for (1) real-growth, & for (2) inflation indices (for the last 100 years), have been mathematical constants. However, the FED's target (interest rates), is INDIRECT, varies WIDELY OVER TIME, & in MAGNITUDE.
First, there is no ambiguity in forecasts: In contradistinction to Bernanke (and using his terminology), forecasts are mathematically "precise” :
(1) “Money” is the measure of liquidity; the yardstick by which the liquidity of all other assets is measured;
(2) Income velocity is a contrived figure (fabricated); it’s the transactions velocity (bank debits - Vt) that’s statistically significant (i.e., financial transactions are not random);
(3) Nominal-gDp is the product of monetary flows (M*Vt) (or aggregate monetary purchasing power), i.e., our means-of-payment money (M), times its transactions rate of turnover (Vt);
(4) The rates-of-change (roc’s) used by economists are specious (always at an annualized rate; which never coincides with an economic lag). The Fed’s technical staff, et al., has learned their catechisms;
(5) Friedman became famous using only half the equation (the means-of-payment money supply), leaving his believers with the labor of Sisyphus;
(6) Contrary to economic theory, & Nobel laureate, Dr. Milton Friedman, monetary lags are not “long & variable”. The lags for monetary flows (MVt), i.e. the proxies for (1) real-growth, & for (2) inflation indices (for the last 100 years), are mathematical constants. However, the FED's target (interest rates), is indirect, varies widely over time, & in magnitude;
(7) Roc’s in (MVt) are always measured with the same length of time as the specific economic lag (as its influence approaches its maximum historical impact (not an arbitrary date range); as demonstrated by the clustering on a scatter plot diagram);
(8) Not surprisingly, the companion series, ....(their roc’s), corroborate both of monetary flows’ (MVt) distributed lags –-- their lengths are identical....;
(9) Consequently, since the lags for (1) monetary flows (MVt), & ...., are synchronous & indistinguishable, economic prognostications (using simple algebra), are infallible (for less than one year);
(10) Asset inflation, or economic bubbles, are incorporated: including housing, commodity, dot.com, etc. This is the “Holy Grail” & it is inviolate & sacrosanct: See 1931 Committee on Bank Reserves Proposal (by the Board’s Division of Research and Statistics), published Feb, 5, 1938, declassified after 45 years on March 23, 1983. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/bogsub020538.pdf;
(11) The BEA uses quarterly accounting periods for real-gDp and the deflator. The accounting periods for gDp should correspond to the specific economic lag, not quarterly. Because the lags for gDp data overlap roc’s in MVt, the statistical correlation between the two is somewhat degraded. However the statistical correlation between roc’s in MVt, & for example, the bond market is unparalleled;
(12) Monetary policy objectives should not be in terms of any particular rate or range of growth of any monetary aggregate. Rather, policy should be formulated in terms of desired roc’s in monetary flows (MVt) relative to roc’s in real-gDp;
(13) Combining real-output with inflation to obtain roc’s in nominal-gDp, can then be used as a proxy figure for roc’s in all transactions. Roc’s in real-gDp have to be used, of course, as a policy standard;
(14) Because of monopoly elements, and other structural defects, which raise costs, and prices, unnecessarily, and inhibit downward price flexibility in our markets, it is advisable to follow a monetary policy which will permit the roc in monetary flows (MVt), to exceed the roc in real-gDp by c. 2 – 3 percentage points;
(15) Monetary policy is not a cure-all, there are structural elements in our economy that preclude a zero rate of inflation. In other words, some inflation is inevitable given our present market structure and the commitment of the federal government to hold unemployment rates at tolerable levels;
(16) Some people prefer the “devil theory” of inflation: “It’s all Peak Oil's fault", ”Peak Debt's fault", or the result of the “Stockpiling of Strategic Raw Materials/Industrial Metals” & Soaring Agriculture Produce. These approaches ignore the fact that the evidence of inflation is represented by "actual" prices in the marketplace;
(17) The "administered" prices would not be the "asked" prices, were they not “validated” by (MVt), i.e., “validated” by the world's Central Banks;
Given it's Friday of a tough, annoying market week, and many of you East Coasters will soon be socked with a big storm, do you mind if I simplify? You're worried about sudden inflation due to Bennie's Printing Press, right? Well, then -- why didn't you say so in the first post :)
In my haste to preserve brain cells on a Friday for more imporant things (such as watching our phenom Kyrie play in a few hours) I assumed 'Roc' referred to the mythical Persion bird of prey which, in the context of your overall dissertation, makes more sense than rate-of-change.
Finally, it's worth mentioning, purely for personal reasons, that the economist I most respect in your above exegesis was Sisyphus, who would undoubtedly understand my battle YTD with TZA. Still, according to Camus, anyone going short over the past few months is a postmodern hero, something to be proud of. It's not the destination that matters, but your principles.
Our analysis tonight also shows that the decoupling between high-yield and equity probably won't last much longer
In Irving Fisher's "equation of exchange": roc's in MVt = roc's in nominal-gDp.
I commented on 12-16-12, 01:50 PM #1 flow5
The Fed doesn't know a bank (which creates new money whenever it makes loans or invests), from a non-bank (the turnover of existing money), i.e., doesn't know money from liquid assets (Keynesian confusion).
Expanded FDIC insurance coverage induced dis-intermediation within the non-banks (resulting in a de facto tightening of FOMC money policy). What caused M1 money growth to surge was that customers transferred their balances between deposit classifications - from savings/investment type accounts (interest-bearing without reserve requirements), to transactions based accounts (non-interest-bearing with reserve requirements).
M1’s growth rate simply represented both an indifference on the part of depositors/savers given historically low yielding assets, & a preference for reduced risk (saver/holders received 100% unlimited FDIC insurance in the deposit classifications where they moved their money).
Stocks current moves are PROOF:
Scaling back coverage will partially reverse prior trends. Prior reductions in RETAIL sweeps to MMDAs, & reductions in COMMERCIAL sweeps to money market instruments (T-Bills, Euro-Dollars, & institutional MMMFs), will also contribute to a higher future velocity of money & collateral.
The precise effect is hard to measure as contrary forces were at work. I.e., Operation Twist ended Dec 31st 2012 having re-infused short-dated "safe-assets" into the money market (facilitating shadow-bank lending or money velocity).
But savings that were formally impounded within the CB system will again be released & flow back through the intermediaries (intermediaries between savers & borrowers), where they are "put to work" (matching savings with investment). I.e., savings held within the CB system are "lost to investment" resulting in a leakage in National Income Accounting. Contrary to all economists, CBs do not loan out existing deposits, saved or otherwise.
As savings flow back thru the intermediaries it will boost the markets/increase real-gDp. It should also re-balance the EUR/USD exchange rate (as currencies will be converted), because it will stimulate growth in the unregulated, prudential reserve, money creating, Euro-dollar banking system.
You'll notice that the roc in MVt fell in Oct & Nov foreshadowing declining gDp. But it has since rebounded. The trajectory for the figures is less than the numbers shown as the calculations haven't been normalized.
Are you available for parties? Specifically, a children's theme party?
I'm not an apologist. I just seem to be the only one who knows that Ben Bernanke is directly responsible for the Great-Recession as Bernanke's team conducted a contractionary monetary policy that caused it (roc's in MVt were negative figures):
POSTED: Dec 13 2007 06:55 PM |
10/1/2007 * temporary bottom
11/1/2007
12/1/2007
1/1/2008
2/1/2008
3/1/2008
4/1/2008
5/1/2008
6/1/2008
7/1/2008
8/1/2008
9/1/2008
10/1/2008 * possible recession
11/1/2008 * possible recession
12/1/2008 * possible recession
Exactly as predicted:
Even as the Commerce Department said Retail sales increased by 1.2% over October 2006, and up a huge 6.3% from November 2006.
No completely booked up.
How foolish of me to ask.
Still, I'm a bit disappointed. I was going to have you do a presentation on the importance of noncompetitive acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in driving scholarly achievement to a bunch of 5-yr-olds dressed in princess costumes.
No doubt, my face, this very moment looks like their faces would look. This sounds like cool information, but it's inaccessible to me. Still, it holds this glittering promise of value, so it's worth asking: Could someone summarize(briefly) why this info. is important to me & my 5 year old in the princess costume?
I understand words like cheeseburger, shake, jeans, broke, rich, love, poof, and LOOK OUT BELOOOOWWW.
.
It's possible he thinks Bernanke et. al. allowed the recession to happen by not diligently monitoring the rate of change in money flows in relation to GDP growth, and that now the reverse is happening and the ROC of GDP will explode, hence the markets shrugging off the negative 4Q GDP print.
I suspect, however, that a better guidepost to the overall state of the world is the number of times Mendelssohn's Octet and/or Brahms or Dvorak's Sextets have been checked out of your local library.
too much medical marijuana must be driving Your scholarly achievement
As mentioned, a significant USD rally awaits.
Equities,PM's,commodities,EURUSD,AUDUSD etc. will drop.
http://trader618.com
Capital Context: 'Stocks remain significantly dislocated'
Mmm.. where have I heard that before ?
http://trader618.com
It's Leland Pritchard's theory (Ph.D. -Chicago, economics, 1933),
(1)
flow5 (2/26/07; 14:34:35MT - usagold.com msg#: 152672)
Suckers Rally
If gold doesn't fall, then there's a new paradigm.
============
Some people think Feb 27, 2007 started across the ocean. "On Feb. 28, Bernanke told the House Budget Committee he could see no single factor that caused the market's pullback a day earlier". In fact, it was home grown. It was the seventh biggest one-day point drop ever for the Dow. On a percentage basis, the Dow lost about 3.3 percent - its biggest one-day percentage loss since March 2003
(2)
Written on Mar 30 11:31 am prior to the MAY 6th FLASH CRASH:
Assuming no quick countervailing stimulus:
2010
jan..... 0.54.... 0.25 top
feb..... 0.50.... 0.10
mar.... 0.54.... 0.08
apr..... 0.46.... 0.09 top
may.... 0.41.... 0.01 stocks fall
Been saying this for the last 6 months. Should see shortly. Stock market makes a double top in Jan & Apr. Then the real-output of final goods & services falls/inverts from (9) to (1) from Apr to May.
Recent history indicates that this will be a marked, short, one month drop, in rate-of-change for real-output (-8).
------------------
flow5 Message #10 - 05/03/10 07:30 PM
The markets usually turn (pivot) on May 5th (+ or - 1 day).
(3)
Monetary flows (MVt) peaked in July. "the stock market should be topping & in the process of a downtrend" Jul 21, 2011, 8:32pm by flow5
These are posts. I don't forecast. My best call was the 1981 peak in yields. Predicted AAA corporates to reach 15.48% Actual rate was 15.49%.
It wasn't luck.
"The Federal Reserve Plans To Identify “Key Bloggers” And Monitor Billions Of Conversations About The Fed On Facebook, Twitter, Forums And Blogs"
This was meant to censor the Fed's technical staff. Those Ph.Ds in economics that know what's happening.
See: http://bit.ly/yUdRIZ
Quantitative Easing and Money Growth:
Potential for Higher Inflation?
Daniel L. Thornton
This is our means-of-payment money (transaction accounts) & the money multiplier (the true monetary base).
The Fed's technical staff figured most of this out long ago:
In 1931 a commission was established on Member Bank Reserve Requirements - The commission completed their recommendations on Feb. 5, 1938. The study was entitled "Member Bank Reserve Requirements -- Analysis of Committee Proposal"
It's 2nd proposal: "Requirements against debits to deposits"
This research paper was DECLASSIFIED on March 23, 1983. By the time this paper was declassified, required reserves had become a "tax" [sic].
Friedman is an old dead punk. He thought CB reserves were a "tax". A brief “run down” will indicate just how costless, indeed how profitable – to the participants, is the creation of new money. (prior to the intro to IOeR), if the Fed put through buy orders in the open market, the Federal Reserve Banks acquired earning assets by creating new inter-bank demand deposits. The U.S. Treasury recaptured about 98% of the net income from these assets. The commercial banks acquire “free” legal reserves, yet the bankers complained that they didn't earn any interest on their balances in the Federal Reserve Banks.
On the basis of these newly acquired free reserves, the commercial banks created a multiple volume of credit & money. And, through this money, they acquired a concomitant volume of additional earnings assets. How much was this multiple expansion of money, credit, & bank earning assets? Thanks to fractional reserve banking (an essential characteristic of commercial banking) for every dollar of legal reserves pumped into the member banks by the Fed, the banking system acquired about 93 (c. 2006), dollars in earning assets through credit creation.
Is this a recycled thread from 1997?
In any case, not very effective as a BOO!
I don't think there is ANYONE in the entire world who is not furious with Japan - other than the (very loud!) Momo currency traders.
The Chinese are beyond furious.
And many in the US are seething less than secretly, too.
I think the upcoming G-20 meeting is going to be one of most contentious on record. And the Russians running it will add possibly much fuel to the fire.
So let us see what we shall see.