Federal Reserve

It is becoming increasingly clear that, come hell, high water, or dismal data, The Federal Reserve will raise rates in December whether the market likes it (which it will guarantee) or the economy doesn't (which doesn't matter after all). Fischer brushed off weak inflation (at Jackson Hole), Yellen dismissed global turmoil cocnerns (in the last FOMC statement), and now, with the final nail in the coffin of data-dependent lies, The San Fran Fed just dismissed 'wage growth' as entirely irrelevent for forecasting future growth or inflation; thus enabling The Fed to justify a December rate-hike no matter how bad the data they are so dependent on turns out to be.

The Fed is weighing the negative consequences of a strong dollar on corporate profits vs. unleashing inflation on the electorate, pressuring long term interest rates. We will soon see which negative scenario they favor and why.

While there are certainly reasons to be "hopeful" that stocks will continue to rise into the future, "hope" has rarely been a fruitful investment strategy longer term. Therefore, let's analyze each of the optimist's arguments from both perspectives to eliminate "confirmation bias." 

The Federal Reserve was supposed to serve the nation, however as even Bloomberg observes today, ended up "steamrolling" Main Street. One reason why: directors such as this one. Presenting former Morgan Stanley CEO, James Gorman, whose former employer got a $107 billion loan from the Federal Reserve to avoid implosion.

On a day full of Manufacturing/PMI surveys from around the globe, the numbers everyone was looking at came out of China, where first the official, NBS PMI data disappointed after missing Mfg PMI expectations (3rd month in a row of contraction), with the Non-mfg PMI sliding to the lowest since 2008, however this was promptly "corrected" after the other Caixin manufacturing PMI soared to 48.3 in October from 47.2 in September - the biggest monthly rise of 2015 - and far better than the median estimate of 47.6, once again leading to the usual questions about China's Schrodinger economy, first defined here, which is continues to expand and contract at the same time.

How many banks (and other companies) are doing the Enron thing? Many more than you would be led to believe, for now it's legal. Simple proof that this will end even prettier than Enron.

This is not legitimate. This is not a market. It is more, systemic crime.

Late on Friday afternoon, after recording its biggest monthly points gain in history, the S&P500 unexpectedly took a surprising swoon lower to close trading well in the red. This chart may be the reason why.

The now immortal line spoken by Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" (1971 Warner Bros.) has never fit as a descriptor these financial markets more so than it does today. For if you believe you’re investing as opposed to gambling? These markets are now poised to show everyone the difference.

In a somewhat shocking admission of its own un-omnipotence, or perhaps more of a C.Y.A. moment for the inevitable mean-reversion to reality, Reuters reports that San Francisco Fed President John Williams said Friday that low neutral interest rates are a warning sign of possible changes in the U.S. economy that the central bank does not fully understand. With Japan having been there for decades, and the rest of the developed world there for 6 years, suddenly, just weeks away from what The Fed would like the market to believe is the first rate hike in almost a decade, Williams decides now it is the time to admit the central planners might be missing a factor (and carefully demands better fiscal policy).

These banks, 6 years after the global financial crisis, are still facing shortcomings on their balance sheets... How scary is that?!

It was 77 years ago this week that Orson Welles struck terror into the hearts of Americans with his live radio broadcast of the HG Wells classic War of the Worlds. What struck me while watching the PBS retrospective were the similarities between then and now. The gullibility of the masses, the power of fear, the overreaction by the media, busy bodies calling for the government to do something, and the effectiveness of propaganda are all commonalities between that Fourth Turning and today’s Fourth Turning.

China as the global Bubble’s focal point – the weak link yet, at the same time, the key marginal source of Bubble finance. China’s policy course appears to focus on two facets: to stabilize the yuan versus the dollar and to resuscitate Credit expansion. For better than two decades, similar policy courses were followed by myriad EM policymakers in hopes of sustaining financial and economic booms. Many cases ended in abject failure – often spectacularly. Why? Because when officials resort to such measures to sustain faltering Bubbles it generally works to only exacerbate systemic fragilities. For one, late-stage reflationary measures compound Credit system vulnerability while compounding structural impairment to the real economy. Secondly, central bank and banking system Credit-bolstering measures create liquidity that invariably feeds destabilizing “capital” and “hot money” outflows.

In September, the total physical gold held in custody at the NY Fed dropped another 19.9 tons in September, down to 5,919.5 tons. This was a doubling in gold withdrawals from 10 tons in August, and is the highest withdrawal since January. At just under 5,920 total tons in NY Fed inventory, this is the lowest amount of gold held in NY Fed custody in decades.

We will be the first to admit that yield curve inversion is not the only factor causing recessions, but through the credit channel it can be an important contributor. Depending on the importance of the credit channel, the Federal Reserve, by pegging the short term rate at zero, have essentially removed one recessionary market mechanism that used to efficiently clear excesses within the financial system. While stability obsessed Keynesians on a quest to the permanent boom regard this as a positive development, the rest of us obviously understand that false stability breeds instability.