Ben Bernanke

Consumers are paying an easy $35 dollars per barrel over what they would otherwise dole out for a barrel of oil if fund managers didn`t use the benchmark futures contracts as their own personal ATMs.

Two years ago, in January 2010, Zero Hedge wrote "This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied" which became one of our most read stories of the year. The reason? Perhaps something to do with an implicit attempt at capital controls by the government on one of the primary forms of cash aggregation available: $2.7 trillion in US money market funds. The proximal catalyst back then were new proposed regulations seeking to pull one of these three core pillars (these being no volatility, instantaneous liquidity, and redeemability) from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7. A key proposal would give money market fund managers the option to "suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets." In other words: an attempt to prevent money market runs (the same thing that crushed Lehman when the Reserve Fund broke the buck). This idea, which previously had been implicitly backed by the all important Group of 30 which is basically the shadow central planners of the world (don't believe us? check out the roster of current members), did not get too far, and was quickly forgotten. Until today, when the New York Fed decided to bring it back from the dead by publishing "The Minimum Balance At Risk: A Proposal to Mitigate the Systemic Risks Posed by Money Market FUnds". Now it is well known that any attempt to prevent a bank runs achieves nothing but merely accelerating just that (as Europe recently learned). But this coming from central planners - who never can accurately predict a rational response - is not surprising. What is surprising is that this proposal is reincarnated now. The question becomes: why now? What does the Fed know about market liquidity conditions that it does not want to share, and more importantly, is the Fed seeing a rapid deterioration in liquidity conditions in the future, that may and/or will prompt retail investors to pull their money in another Lehman-like bank run repeat?

• U.S drought wilts crops as officials pray for rain (Reuters)
• Obama backs aid for drought farmers (FT)
• Greek leaders identify two-thirds of spending cuts (FT)
• Central bankers eyeing whether Libor needs scrapping (Reuters)
• Markets Face a Life Sentence of Hard Libor (WSJ)
• World Bank chief warns no region immune to Europe crisis (Reuters)
• China big four banks' new loans double in early July (Reuters)
• Nokia Loss Widens as Smartphone Sales Slump (WSJ)
• Bundesbank Expected To Buy Australian Dollars In 3Q (WSJ)

CNBC's Rick Santelli is goaded into responding to the easing-based hope that is driving stock prices and levitating every risk asset class. "Enough is enough", he notes, quoting Volcker's recent comments, "as we have to let the economy sink or swim on its own at this point." Liesman's responds by stepping away a little from his comments as he leaves Bernanke alone believing that QE will do some good at the margin (while the economic reporter remains less sure). Implicit in his downgrade of the economy is an increase in the probability of additional QE and retail sales sank the ship. A little later in this brief clip, Rick goes full-Santelli - feeling the need to add a third pillar to the Fed's mandate "if we see something wrong in the market, it's our job to do something about it" with Bernanke's response being "it's not my job". Critically, Rick notes, "if anybody listening or watching right now ever thinks that more regulators will ever stop anything, you have to watch Ben Bernanke - appears to be an honest guy and straightforward though I don't always agree with him - saying 'it's not my job. I don't regulate that.' unbelievable!" The CYA, not-my-problem, someone-else-did-it, keep-my-job mentality when it's front-and-center in the most powerful financial entity in the world is deplorable.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) primary role is to make retail markets for financial products and services work more effectively, and so help retail consumers to get a fair deal. In June 2006, the FSA created its Retail Distribution Review (RDR) programme which they are enacting in order to enhance consumer confidence in the retail investment market. The RDR has a target for full-implementation of 31 December 2012. The RDR is expected to have a significant impact on the way in which financial services are delivered to retail investors in the UK. The primary delivery mechanism of financial services to retail customers is via approximately 30,000 Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) who are authorised and regulated by the FSA. They are expected to bear the brunt of the force of the RDR. Gold bullion is set to benefit from the axing of commission for IFAs and the implementation of the RDR “should be regarded as a game changer” for gold as an investment in the UK, according to the World Gold Council. Managing director of investment Marcus Grubb, says: “These extremely challenging times mean it’s impossible to quantify the risks for UK investors. They are facing an unprecedented combination of threats to their assets including extreme and unexpected market shocks that can trigger widespread value destruction.” “As UK investors reduce allocations to traditional investments such as equities and bonds and increasingly dash to cash, they face a double whammy, with the potential for stagnation of capital due to the lack of returns from cash and the increased possibility of inflation as a result of ongoing monetary stimulation.”

• Who Needs the Euro When You Can Pay With Deutsche Marks? (WSJ)
• Now it's personal and ad hominem: Is German Economist Exacerbating Euro Crisis? (Spiegel)
• Bernanke Outlines Range Of Options For Additional Easing (Bloomberg)
• Italy's Monti says serious worry Sicily region may default (Reuters)
• Libor ‘structurally flawed’, says Fed (FT)
• Some Firms Opt to Bring Manufacturing Back to U.S. (WSJ)
• ECB Signals Support for Easing Irish Debt Terms (WSJ)
• China’s Wen Warns Of Severe Job Outlook As Growth Yet To Return (Bloomberg)
• Hollande scraps tax breaks on overtime (WSJ)
• China’s June Home Prices Rebound As Sentiment Improves (Bloomberg)

"A week after Bernanke spoke last year we saw the highs for H2 2012 (1345) before moving aggressively lower into the low 1100s through August- October as Europe’s problems intensified and the US debt ceiling problems came to a head. One year on and the biggest H2 risks are probably similar. US data is weakening, Europe’s problems could easily come to a head again and the fiscal cliff could become a major issue, albeit slightly later in the year. We also now have a China slowdown to contend with. So the parallels are there."

When the Fed released its "trove" of materials confirming that the Fed indeed knew that the Barclays was manipulating its Libor submissions (amusingly explained by Ben Bernanke before Senate today that "the employee had no idea what Libor is in that case"), few were surprised, but more were confused why the congressional inquiry focused solely on the Fed's interactions with British Barclays, instead of focusing on the three domestic banks that were part of the BBA's USD Libor fixing committee.Sure enough, the 3 US banks on the USD Libor fixing committee were just dragged into the fray: "Representative Randy Neugebauer, a Texas Republican and chairman of the oversight and investigations panel of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee said he intends to request correspondence between the Fed and the three U.S. banks on the Libor-setting panel, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp., according to a congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details were not yet public."

Buried deep in the newsflow from Ben Bernanke is the following piece of very critical news for anyone who is still long Italian bonds: namely that Italy may not be Spain, or Uganda, but Sicily is about to become San Bernardino. From Reuters:  "Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti said on Tuesday he expected the governor of Sicily to resign following a growing financial crisis that has pushed the autonomous region close to default." Because the resignation of Sicily Governor Lombardo will somehow allow all those who care about the fundamentals of Italy to stick their heads in the sand... at least until Sicily is followed by Calabria, Campania, Lazio, Abruzzo, Tuscany, Lombardy, Umbria, Liguria, Veneto and so on. At least the governors of those respective provinces now have an advance warning what the endgame is.

Ben Bernanke will deliver the semiannual report on monetary policy to the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday. The market is hoping and praying that the Chairsatan will make it rain. He won't. In fact, as explained earlier, it is likely that Ben will say absolutely nothing of significance today and in a world in which only the H.4.1 matters, this is not going to be taken well by the market. Of course, if Benny does crack and promises to push the S&P to 1450 just in time for the re-election, all bets are off.

Folks, the political game has changed in the US. The Fed is no longer invulnerable. In this climate more QE cannot possibly happen. End of story. Indeed, if the Fed were to launch QE at any time between now and the election, Obama is DONE. The last possibly chance for QE without it being a clear hand-out to Obama (and a gift from the political gods to Romney) was June. The Fed passed on that.

When it comes to insight into what is on Ben Bernanke, nobody is quite as capable as the firm that runs not only the NY Fed, but virtually every other central bank in the world: Goldman Sachs. Below we present Jan Hatzius' thoughts on what to expect when Bernanke takes the stand at 10 am today when he delivers the first day of his semi-annual Humphrey Hawkins presentation to Congress. Many expect him to hint at more QE, and lately a tempest in a teapot (to use the parlance of our times) has erupted over the possibility that the Fed will lower IOER to 0 or even negative. Here is what Goldman has to say about that: "we do not expect an IOER cut at this time." In fact, Goldman is rather skeptical Bernanke will hit at much if anything, especially with bond yields already at record lows: after all, how much more frontrunning of the Fed's bond or MBS purchases is there? Instead look for much more grilling on the Fed's role in Lieborgate: congress is now realizing it is woefully behind its UK political cousins when it comes to reaping points from years of global Libor manipulation. More importantly, Maxine et al have finally finished all those "Libor for absolute corrupt idiots" books they ordered almost a month ago so they are truly prepared.

Since January 2007, long-only equity funds have seen redemptions of $545 billion. In the same period bond funds have seen inflows of $630 billion. In the last few months, cumulative flows into equity funds have retraced all the way back to 1996. While every day is a QuEasy day for stocks, it seems the 'financial repression' is working as instead of getting everyone else to do the opposite of what the Fed is doing by making yields on other 'riskless' assets meaningless, all that the Fed has succeeded in doing, is getting everyone in the world to frontrun it in buying bonds. Period

On occasion of the publication of his new gold report (read here), Ronald Stoeferle talked with financial journalist Lars Schall about fundamental gold topics such as: "financial repression"; market interventions; the oil-gold ratio;  the renaissance of gold in finance;  "Exeter’s Pyramid"; and what the true "value" of gold could actually look like. Via Matterhorn Asset Management.

Josh Barro of Bloomberg has an interesting theory.  According to him, conservatives in modern day America have become so infatuated with the school of Austrian economics that they no longer listen to reason.  It is because of this diehard obsession that they reject all empirical evidence and refuse to change their favorable views of laissez faire capitalism following the financial crisis.  Basically, because the conservative movement is so smitten with the works of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, they see no need to pose any intellectual challenge to the idea that the economy desperately needs to be guided along by an “always knows best” government; much like a parent to a child.  CNN and Newsweek contributor David Frum has jumped on board with Barro and levels the same critique of conservatives while complaining that not enough of them follow Milton Friedman anymore.

To put this as nicely as possible, Barro and Frum aren’t just incorrect; they have put their embarrassingly ignorant understandings of Austrian economics on full display for all to see.