St Louis Fed
- Jobs Gauge Carries Election Clout (WSJ)
- Draghi Lured by Fractious EU Leaders to Build Euro 2.0 (Blooomberg)
- Rajoy stance sets stage for EU stand-off (FT)
- China Approves Plan to Build New Roads to Boost Economy (Bloomberg)
- Hollande faces questions on tax pledge (FT)
- Putin Looks East for Growth as Debt-Ridden Europe Loses Sheen (Bloomberg)
- Strike Grounds Half of Lufthansa's Flights (Spiegel)
- The weakest will win in the euro battle (FT)
- Hilsenrath: Fed Economic, Interest Rate Forecasts Will Include 2015 Outlook (WSJ) - because he just figured that out
- Obama Presses Plan for U.S. Resurgence (WSJ)
- Hong Kong to Restrict Sales of Homes at Two Sites to Locals (Bloomberg)
- Drought Curbs Midwest Farm-Income Outlook, St. Louis Fed Says (Bloomberg)
Gold $1669.80 up 20 cents - Silver $30.61 up 16 cents Silver Charges Ahead, Gold Rebuffs Cartel RaidSubmitted by lemetropole on 08/24/2012 19:03 -0500
Silver is going to blow SKY HIGH!!
Following yesterday's FOMC minutes we suggested that the minutes are, all facts considered, extremely stale, especially when one actually observes the surge in all economic indicators (or should we say seasonal adjustments) since the last FOMC meeting. Moments ago, on CNBC, non-voting St Louis Fed president confirmed just that.
- St. Louis Fed President Bullard says FOMC minutes “are a bit stale”.
- Says some data stronger since FOMC minutes
- Doesn’t know where FOMC will come out on easing
- Says “different constellation” of data vs 2011
- Says “not sure” data warrant big FOMC action
- Says U.S. unemployment “very high”
- Says “we’re not going to react” directly to stock market
In other words, the FOMC minutes do not reflect the economy, but the Fed does not care about the market which just happens to be at 2012 highs, as it does not reflect the economy either, but instead reflects merely what the FOMC thinks, which in turn reacts solely to the market.
Ron Paul’s signature Audit the Fed legislation finally passed the House; on July 25, the House bill was passed 327 to 98. But the chances of a comprehensive audit of monetary policy — including the specifics of the 2008 bailouts — remain distant. All that the current state of secrecy does is encourage conspiracy theories. What is the FOMC trying to hide? Are they making decisions that they think would prove unpopular or inexplicable? We can’t have a real debate about policy unless we have access to all the data about decisions. Those who believe the Fed’s monetary policy has worked should welcome transparency just as much as those who believe the Fed’s monetary policy has not worked. If the Fed’s actions have been beneficial, then transparency will shine kindly on it. If not, then transparency will help us have a better debate about the road forward.
Just like last time around when stocks were plunging with no knight in shining armor in sight, until the Fed's faithful mouthpiece-cum-scribe Jon Hilsenrath showed up with a report, subsequently disproven, that more QE is coming minutes before the market close on July 6, so today stocks appeared poised for a precipice until some time after 3 pm it was leaked that none other than Hilseranth once again appeared, at precisely 3:55 pm, with more of the same. Ironically, the market only saw the word Hilsenrath in the headline, and ignored the rest. The irony is that this time around the Fed's scribbler said nothing that we did not know, namely that the Fed can do something in August, or it may do something in September, or it may do nothing, none of which is actually news.
Fed governors regurgitate it time and again to rationalize their policies.
That the just released consumer credit update for April missed expectations of a $11 billion increase is not much of a surprise. As noted earlier, the US consumer has once again resumed deleveraging: April merely saw this trend continue with revolving credit declining by $3.4 billion, offset by the now traditional increase in student and subprime government motors car loans, which increased by $10 billion. In other words, following a modest increase in revolving consumer credit in March, we have another downtick, and a YTD revolving credit number which is now negative. Obviously the government-funded student loan bubble still has a ways to go. No: all of this was expected. What was very surprising is that as noted in the earlier breakdown of the Z1, the entire consumer credit series was revised, with the cumulative impact resulting in a major divergence from the original data series. Why did the Fed feel compelled to revise consumer credit lower? Simple: as debt goes down, net worth goes up, assuming assets stay flat. Which in the Fed's bizarro world they did! Sure enough, if one compares the pre-revision Household Net Worth data (which can still be found at the St. Louis Fed but probably not for long) with that just released Z.1, one notices something quite, for lack of a better word, magical. Ignoring the March 31 datapoint which does not exist for the pre-revision data set, at December 31, household net worth magically grew from $58.5 trillion in the original data set to $60.0 trillion in the revised one!
The comedy continues: the April "Not in labor force" seasonally adjusted print: 88,419,000. And yet, the maximum reading permitted by St Louis Fed Not in Labor Force (LNS15000000) graph: 88,000,000. The data has now officially dropped off the chart. No further commentary necessary.
This Is the First Time In History that All Central Banks Have Printed Money at the Same Time … And They’re Failing MiserablySubmitted by George Washington on 05/01/2012 17:44 -0500
Simultaneous Global Printing Is Failing Miserably
Busy day today with lots of economic data and some more Fed good cap-bad cop theater as both hawk Bullard and dove Pianalto pretend to give an objective picture of what is on CTRL+P's mind.
"In the last three plus years, central banks have had little choice but to do the unsustainable in order to sustain the unsustainable until others do the sustainable to restore sustainability!" is how PIMCO's El-Erian introduces the game-theoretic catastrophe that is potentially occurring around us. In a lecture to the St.Louis Fed, the moustachioed maestro of monetary munificence states "let me say right here that the analysis will suggest that central banks can no longer – indeed, should no longer – carry the bulk of the policy burden" and "it is a recognition of the declining effectiveness of central banks’ tools in countering deleveraging forces amid impediments to growth that dominate the outlook. It is also about the growing risk of collateral damage and unintended circumstances." It appears that we have reached the legitimate point of – and the need for – much greater debate on whether the benefits of such unusual central bank activism sufficiently justify the costs and risks. This is not an issue of central banks’ desire to do good in a world facing an “unusually uncertain” outlook. Rather, it relates to questions about diminishing returns and the eroding potency of the current policy stances. The question is will investors remain "numb and sedated…. by the money sloshing around the system?" or will "the welfare of millions in the United States, if not billions of people around the world, will have suffered greatly if central banks end up in the unpleasant position of having to clean up after a parade of advanced nations that headed straight into a global recession and a disorderly debt deflation." Of course, it is a rhetorical question.
John Taylor, of the Taylor-Rule, who has not been sheepish with his views towards the Fed openly questioned the Fed's independence during a speech to the Joint Economic Committee today. During his testimony at the hearing on the 'Sound Dollar Act of 2012', Taylor noted: "The discretionary interventions of the Federal Reserve have been ratcheted up in such unprecedented ways in recent years that they raise fundamental questions about the future of monetary policy." Perhaps more pointedly, especially given Bernanke's speech today on the Fed's extreme actions and given the hope for a constant interventionist role for the Fed to keep our economy market afloat "The fact that the Fed can, if it chooses, intervene without limit into any credit market - raises more uncertainty, and of course raises questions about why an independent agency of government should have such power."
Bunch of irrelevant and reflexive (stock market is up so confidence - in what? manipulated markets? - is higher, so stock market is up so confidence is higher etc) stuff today, as the world central banks prepare to pump another $600-$1000 billion into the consolidated balance sheet and send input costs into the stratosphere. Somehow this is bullish for stocks. Luckily, it will finally break the EURUSD - ES linkage.
It may be just me, but it seems like majority of market participants are terrible at dealing with one of the rudiments of life as a human being; time. It is almost as if the herding man lives in constant contempt for his former self and dogmatic surety about his current convictions (whether they relate to past, present or even the future). If this hunch happens to be true, then it doesn’t take much to see the folly – for surprise surprise; as time passes the much-loved present conviction joins the realm of past regrets. So to thwart the arrogance of the gold bubble-top callers and the long-for-the-sake-of-being-long speculators here I outline why you, they and — hell — I might just buy that forthcoming parabolic move in gold.