Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is There a Limit to Financialization?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is There a Limit to Financialization?

    Janet’s Yellen’s pettifogging today about her patient lack of impatience was downright pathetic. Her verbal hair-splitting is starting to make medieval ritual incantations sound coherent by comparison.

    But unlike the financial media’s dopey dithering about “dot plots”, Yellen at least has something to hide behind all the gibberish. Namely, she and her merry band of money printers are becoming more petrified each month that they will trigger a thundering Wall Street hissy fit if they move to “normalize” interest rates—-even as they are slowly beginning to realize that continuance of ZIRP much longer will only intensify the market’s addiction to rampant speculation, free money carry trades and the associated risks to financial stability.

    But the Fed’s new found worry that it’s tsunami of liquidity might have untoward effects doesn’t even rank as a death bed conversion. It’s way too late to worry about a financial bubble that has become epic in scope and danger; and its especially too late to think that it can be weasel-worded down from its Brobdingnagian heights.

    The reason the Fed is impaled in a monster trap is that history is closing in on it. We have now had upwards of three decades of increasingly aggressive monetary inflation—-a corrosive trend culminating in what will be 80 months of zero money market rates and a massive monetization of debt claims that originally funded the consumption of real labor and capital resources.

    Needless to say, that has generated a dangerous and ever widening disconnect between the real main street economy and the nominal value of assets in the financial system. This rupture has been called “financialization”, but it amounts to this: Fed attempts at monetary stimulus are now wholly contained within the financial system where it generates persistent inflation of existing asset values. That is, stimulus never leaves the canyons of Wall Street.

    There is no monetary policy transmission outward to the real economy because the credit channel to households and businesses is terminally busted. This condition is partially owing to peak debt among households, meaning that they can’t borrow any more even if the interest carry cost is virtually free; and also due to financial arbitrage in the corporate sector, where equity is being systematically strip-mined by debt-financed financial engineering in the form of stock buybacks, M&A takeovers and LBOs.

    Accordingly, the financial system has ballooned dramatically faster than the real economy over recent decades—–even when measured by nominal GDP, including the latter’s considerable element of pure price inflation on a cumulative long-term basis. The economic tether between the two, therefore, is now stretched like a rubber band to the breaking point. The possibility it might snap and cause a drastic implosion of the financial system is what the monetary politburo fears, even if it fails to realize the full extend of the danger.

    A big picture approximation of this disconnect can be seen in the ratio of the market value of corporate equities compared to nominal GDP. Even on a pure read-the-charts basis, it is evident that at the current market capitalization-to-GDP ratio of 127%—-we are on the far edge of historical observation. In fact, during the 250 quarters since 1950 shown in the graph, the ratio has been higher only 4 times. And that was at the lunatic peak of the dotcom bubble in late 1999 and 2000!

    Yet that’s only the half of it. Prior to Greenspan’s arrival at the Fed in 1987, and the subsequent evolution of the wealth effects doctrine and practice at the Fed under his superintendence, the mean ratio of market cap to GDP averaged about 60% and the cyclical amplitude fluctuated between 40% and 80%. Since 1994 when the Fed capitulated to Wall Street during the bond market bust and the Mexican peso crisis, however, the ratio has averaged nearly 100% of GDP and the amplitude of cyclical oscillation has widened dramatically.

    The point is that this is not just about timeless chart cycles which rise and fall——although even in that context the current point is obviously precarious by all past experience. Instead, the reality is that we are in a new, central bank-driven serial bubble cycle that reflects the progressive radicalization of monetary policy.



    Buffett Indicator
    The implications of this financialization are vast. In no sense is the Fed any longer rationally or proactively managing the main street macro-cycle as in the pre-Greenspan era—-whether this really worked effectively and efficiently or not. Now it is simply racing ahead of the tidal wave of financial inflation that it unleashes in the canyons of Wall Street, hoping not to be overtaken by the inexorable bust which follows speculative booms.

    As always, the bullish crowd in the casino thinks this time is different, but actually this time is more dangerous. Sooner or later the bubble will burst when the last sheep are herded into the casino, as has happened already twice this century. But now the financial system’s tether to the real economy is extended like never before in history, meaning that the Fed’s dithering and dissimulation—on full display once again today—–will only result in a more traumatic dislocation eventually.

    On this score, the recent Q4 release of the flow of funds report, which showed household net worth has now vaulted well above it levels during the previous two market peaks, is telling. As shown below, net worth is soaring and now stands at $83 trillion as of Q4 2014. That compares to $68 trillion at the pre-Lehman peak and only $45 billion at the time of the dotcom bubble.



    Needless to say, these dramatic gains have occurred not because households are saving and investing more or because the US economy has become dramatically more productive and profitable. In fact, it represents a vast inflation of financial and real estate assets.


    Even if the current $83 trillion household wealth figure is adjusted for the GDP deflator, it still means that there has been a 40% gain in aggregate real household net worth since the turn of the century. By contrast, real wage and salary income is up by only 17% and median real household income is actually down from $57k to $52k or by nearly 10%.

    This latter figure highlights the double whammy of central bank driven financialization. One the on hand, financial asset valuations are unsustainably inflated; yet even the so-called wealth effects from these artificial and ultimately temporary gains have not trickled down to the 90% of households which account for only a tiny fraction of financial assets. As a result, there is no kicker to GDP outside of upper-income conspicuous consumption, even as the financial bubble steadily enlarges.

    Not only is this a problem for financial stability, it may also eventually become an even more potent challenge to political stability. Indeed, the 7X gap between mean household net worth of $300k and median net worth of $45k suggests that the day of pitchforks and torches may not be all that far down the road.


    Meanwhile, the financialization timebomb remains lodged in the markets. Aggregate household net worth has soared not because there has been any meaningful deleveraging since the financial crisis. In fact, household debt has declined only marginally—-after soaring for more than three decades.



    And that gets to the heart of the danger. Notwithstanding this enormous rise in aggregate debt, net worth has continued to surge because asset values have been so dramatically inflated. Thus, the ratio of household financial assets to GDP now stands far above any prior history.


    Household Financial Assets Ratio to GDP

    When household real estate is added, which is also driven by financialization, the picture is even more extreme. In 1970 the combined value of household real estate and financial assets was $3.9 trillion and it represented just 3.5X GDP. Even after the fed induced inflation of the 1970s, the combined value was only $19 trillion or 3.9X GDP when Greenspan arrived at the Fed in 1987.

    By contrast, household real estate and financial assets today total $92 trillion or 5.2X GDP. There is absolutely no explanation for this aberrant condition other than the radical monetary inflation fueled by the nation’s central bank. If anything, the efficiency, international competitiveness and growth capacity of the main street economy has eroded measurably since the early 1970s, meaning that valuation multiples should have been tempered, not dramatically enlarged.


    Household Total Real Estate and Financial Asset Value Ratio to GDP

    So we have learned once again today that the Fed still has a lot of patience. Perhaps we will also soon learn that by cowering its way forward our monetary politburo is making the eventual day of reckoning all the more perilous.

    Stockman

  • #2
    Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

    Thanks Don.
    I love reading Stockman, even though the smarter folks around here point out that he does not support his theories very well, and seems to get some fundamental principals wrong.

    Anyone who starts an article with the word "pettifogging" has me smiling.
    He has a couple more great turns of phrase here which are not just good prose, they convey important ideas.
    Such as

    ...There is no monetary policy transmission outward to the real economy because the credit channel to households and businesses is terminally busted. This condition is partially owing to peak debt among households, meaning that they can’t borrow any more even if the interest carry cost is virtually free; and also due to financial arbitrage in the corporate sector, where equity is being systematically strip-mined by debt-financed financial engineering in the form of stock buybacks, M&A takeovers and LBOs...


    and

    ...Not only is this a problem for financial stability, it may also eventually become an even more potent challenge to political stability. Indeed, the 7X gap between mean household net worth of $300k and median net worth of $45k suggests that the day of pitchforks and torches may not be all that far down the road....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

      they both caught my attention as well, both substance and style.

      another telling comment:

      there has been a 40% gain in aggregate real household net worth since the turn of the century. By contrast, real wage and salary income is up by only 17% and median real household income is actually down from $57k to $52k or by nearly 10%.

      Comment


      • #4
        Peak Debt

        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015

        The Unraveling Is Gathering Speed

        Debt saturation and debt fatigue = diminishing returns on central bank tricks.


        Does anyone else have the feeling that things are not just unraveling, but that the unraveling is gathering speed?


        Though quantifying this perception is more interpretative than statistical, I think we can look at the ongoing debt crisis in Greece as an example of this acceleration of events.

        The Greek debt crisis began in 2011 and reached a peak in 2012. The crisis was quelled by new Eurozone/IMF loans to Greece, and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi’s famous “whatever it takes speech” in late July, 2012.


        The Greek debt crisis quickly went from “boil” to “simmer,” where it stayed for almost two-and-a-half years. But no one with any knowledge of the gravity and precariousness of the situation expects the latest “extend and pretend” deal to patch everything together for another two years. Current deals are more likely to last a matter of months, not years.


        We can discern the same diminishing returns in Federal Reserve/central bank interventions, as the initial rounds of quantitative easing pushed stock and bond markets higher for years at a time, while the following interventions generated lower returns.


        What factors are reducing the positive effects of intervention and causing increased volatility? Let’s start with the engine behind every central bank/state intervention and every “save” of the status quo: debt.

        Debt Brings Forward Consumption & Income


        Debt has one primary dynamic: borrowing money to consume something in the present brings forward consumption and income. Economists describe trading future income for consumption today as bringing consumption forward. And since debt must be repaid with interest, bringing consumption forward also brings income forward.


        Let’s say we want to buy a vehicle with cash, and it will take five years to save up the lump-sum purchase cost. We forego current consumption to save for future consumption.


        If we get a 100% auto loan now, we get the use of the vehicle (present-day consumption) and in exchange, we sacrifice some of our income over the next five years to pay back the auto loan. We brought consumption forward, and in essence took future income and brought it forward to pay for the consumption we’re enjoying today.


        We can best understand the eventual consequence of this dynamic with a simplified household example. Let’s say a household has $2,000 a month in net income, i.e. after taxes, healthcare insurance deductions, etc., and rent (or mortgage payments), basic groceries and utilities consume $1,000 of this net income. That leaves the household with $1,000 in disposable income.


        At the risk of boring finance-savvy readers, let’s briefly cover the difference between net income and disposable income. Net income can be earned (wages, salaries, net income from a sole proprietor enterprise, etc.) or unearned (dividends, interest income, rents, etc.) Net income can only rise by making more money or reducing taxes. There are limits to our control of these factors. In a stagnant economy, it’s tough to find better-paying jobs and harder to demand higher wages from employers. Since governments’ expenditures are rising, taxes are also going up; it’s difficult for most wage-earners to cut their total tax load by much.


        Disposable income is more within our control, as it is fundamentally a series of trade-offs between current consumption and future income/savings: if we choose to consume now, we have less income to save for future consumption or investments. If we sacrifice consumption today, we have more money in the future for consumption or investing. If we borrow money to consume today, we’ll have less future income because a slice of our future income must be devoted to pay down the debt we took on to consume today.


        If our household borrows money to buy a vehicle and the payment is $500 per month, the household’s disposable income drops from $1,000 to $500. If the household takes on other debt (credit cards, student loans, etc.) with payments of $500 per month, the household’s disposable income is zero: there is no money left to dine out, go to movies, pay for lessons, etc.


        In effect, all of the future income for years to come has been spent.

        The Only Trick To Expand Debt: Lower Interest Rates


        There are only two ways to support additional debt: either increase net income, or lower the rate of interest on new and existing loans to free up disposable income. Suppose our household refinances its auto loan to a much lower rate of interest and transfers its credit card debt to a lower-interest rate card. Huzzah, each monthly payment drops by $100, and the household has $200 of disposable income to spend on current consumption or on more loans. Let’s say the household chooses to buy new furniture on credit with the windfall. This new consumption brought forward pushes the monthly debt payments back up to $1,000.


        This additional debt-based consumption profits two critical players in the economy: the state (i.e. all levels of government) and the financial sector. The state benefits from the higher taxes generated by the sales, and the financial sector profits from transaction fees and the interest earned on the new loans.


        The household’s consumption and debt rose as a result of lower interest rates, but there is a limit on this dynamic: lenders have to charge enough interest to service the loan, reap a profit and compensate shareholders for the risk of default.


        If lenders fail to properly assess the risk of default. They will be unprepared to absorb the losses incurred as marginal borrowers default en masse. This places the lender’s own solvency at risk.


        Using this trick to enable further expansion of debt thus creates a systemic risk that borrowers will over-borrow and lenders will not have sufficient reserves to absorb the inevitable losses as marginal borrowers default and other borrowers suffer declines in disposable income that trigger further defaults.


        In other words, the trick of lowering interest rates yields diminishing returns: the more debt that is enabled, the thinner the margins of safety and thus the greater the systemic risks rise in direct correlation with rising debt loads.

        The Trick To Increase Consumption: Punish Savers


        While lowering interest rates increases disposable income and enables an expansion of debt, it also generates a disincentive for households to forego current consumption by saving disposable income rather than spending it. Near-zero interest rates actively punish savers by reducing the interest income earned on low-risk savings accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) to near-zero. Savers are pushed into either investing in high-risk markets that benefit the financial sector or by spending rather than saving—a choice that benefits the state, as more spending generates taxes for the state.

        The Global Expansion Of Debt Has Increased Systemic Risks


        These are the basic dynamics of the entire global economy: interest rates have been pushed to near-zero to punish savers and encourage expansion of debt-based consumption. But this inevitably leads to a reduction in disposable income and current consumption, as debt brings forward both consumption and income.


        Once the borrowers have maxed out their borrowing power, there is no more expansion of debt or additional debt-based consumption. This is known as debt saturation: flooding the financial sector with more credit no longer boosts borrowing or brings consumption forward.


        Those who brought their consumption forward can no longer add to present consumption, as their future income is already spoken for.


        That’s where the global economy finds itself today.





        This vast expansion of debt on the backs of marginal borrowers and the expansion of risky investments has greatly increased the systemic risk of losses from defaults arising from over-extended borrowers.

        No wonder every attempt to further expand debt-based consumption is yielding diminishing returns: net income is stagnant virtually everywhere in the bottom 95% of the populace, and further declines in interest rates are increasingly marginal as rates are near-zero everywhere that isn’t suffering a collapse in its currency.


        The diminishing returns manifest in three ways: the gains from each round of central-bank tricks are declining, the periods of stability following the latest “save” are shrinking and the amplitude of each episode of debt crisis is expanding.


        That the unraveling is speeding up is not just perception—it’s reality.


        http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-unraveling-is-gathering-speed.html


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

          Originally posted by don View Post
          they both caught my attention as well, both substance and style.

          another telling comment:

          there has been a 40% gain in aggregate real household net worth since the turn of the century. By contrast, real wage and salary income is up by only 17% and median real household income is actually down from $57k to $52k or by nearly 10%.
          An imbalance of this magnitude doesn't happen accidentally. For all the Fed's soon-to-be handwaving and protests that they never saw it coming (again), this obscene transfer of wealth from the many to the few had to have been deliberate and calculated. If this was all accidental, just "something that happened that no one could forsee or control," then some decisions over the years would have benefitted Main St. at the expense of Wall St, but that didn't happen. This has been like watching the Fed, with the help of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, flipping heads one hundred times in a row... funnelling all the wealth of the country to the banksters via FIRE.

          If someone were to have sat down to design a perfect transference of wealth from the middle class to the top 1/10th of the 1%, it would look exactly like what has been done... from GATT and NAFTA to TARP and QE ad nauseum... All they're doing now is pretending the carnage to the middle class was accidental.

          This is why the Fed will not solve the problem and why they'll continue to unerringly do the wrong things (from our perspective). They're doing their job very well, it's just that they don't work for us.

          Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

            And from Peter Shchiff:

            Investors have long been fixated on the word "patient," which the Federal Reserve removed from its statement Wednesday following a two-day FOMC meeting. But stocks rallied and the dollar fell as the Fed also lowered its forecasts for growth and inflation. That suggested to investors rate hikes are coming later rather than sooner.

            Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital says the word "patient" was always a straw man and that the economic data suggest the "tightening in 2015 narrative" doesn't hold water. He says don't expect a rate hike this year.
            “The Fed has been bluffing the entire time,” says Schiff. “It has no intention of raising rates. But it can’t come clean and admit that, so it has to pretend that it is going to do something it’s not going to do,” he believes, “so it doesn’t reveal the fragility of the U.S. economy.“
            Schiff has long maintained there hasn’t been a recovery in the economy. Recent economic data like retail sales, housing starts and industrial production have helped his case. But the labor market is strong. The economy has been adding more than 200,000 jobs to the economy each month for more than a year, and unemployment has dropped to 5.5%.
            Schiff says those employment numbers don’t tell the whole story. “I don’t think people leaving the labor force in disgust because they can’t find jobs is a good sign,” he says. “So many people are settling for part-time jobs and low-paying jobs. We have college graduates—some with masters’ degrees-- cooking French fries part-time. That counts as a job. But I don’t think that guy thinks he’s employed.”


            The Fed says it needs to see further improvement in the labor market and inflation to hit that elusive 2% target. Schiff believes inflation is going to approach and exceed 2% but he doesn’t think the Fed will do anything. “They will move the goal post like they did with unemployment. They used to say if the unemployment rate got below 6.5%, that’s when we’re going to raise rates. Well it’s at 5.5% and they are still waiting,” he says.
            Schiff believes the Fed will be just as tolerant toward inflation. When inflation hits 2.5 or 3%, Schiff believes there still will not be a rate hike. “But believe me when it’s officially at 3% it’s going to be a lot higher than that,” he says, “and consumers are really going to be feeling the pain.”
            So when does Schiff think a rate hike is coming? Schiff believes Janet Yellen and company “will raise rates eventually.” But, he says they will do so "not because they want to, but because they have to, because the markets will give them no choice, because I think what we will have is a currency crisis.”
            Schiff is predicting QE4 and the collapse of the dollar. He says eventually the Fed’s back will be up against the wall. “They are going to have to jack interest rates way up and you know all hell is going to break loose,” he says. “It’s going to make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

              Originally posted by Southernguy View Post
              And from Peter Shchiff:

              Investors have long been fixated on the word "patient," which the Federal Reserve removed from its statement Wednesday following a two-day FOMC meeting. But stocks rallied and the dollar fell as the Fed also lowered its forecasts for growth and inflation. That suggested to investors rate hikes are coming later rather than sooner.

              Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital says the word "patient" was always a straw man and that the economic data suggest the "tightening in 2015 narrative" doesn't hold water. He says don't expect a rate hike this year.
              “The Fed has been bluffing the entire time,” says Schiff. “It has no intention of raising rates. But it can’t come clean and admit that, so it has to pretend that it is going to do something it’s not going to do,” he believes, “so it doesn’t reveal the fragility of the U.S. economy.“
              Schiff has long maintained there hasn’t been a recovery in the economy. Recent economic data like retail sales, housing starts and industrial production have helped his case. But the labor market is strong. The economy has been adding more than 200,000 jobs to the economy each month for more than a year, and unemployment has dropped to 5.5%.
              Schiff says those employment numbers don’t tell the whole story. “I don’t think people leaving the labor force in disgust because they can’t find jobs is a good sign,” he says. “So many people are settling for part-time jobs and low-paying jobs. We have college graduates—some with masters’ degrees-- cooking French fries part-time. That counts as a job. But I don’t think that guy thinks he’s employed.”


              The Fed says it needs to see further improvement in the labor market and inflation to hit that elusive 2% target. Schiff believes inflation is going to approach and exceed 2% but he doesn’t think the Fed will do anything. “They will move the goal post like they did with unemployment. They used to say if the unemployment rate got below 6.5%, that’s when we’re going to raise rates. Well it’s at 5.5% and they are still waiting,” he says.
              Schiff believes the Fed will be just as tolerant toward inflation. When inflation hits 2.5 or 3%, Schiff believes there still will not be a rate hike. “But believe me when it’s officially at 3% it’s going to be a lot higher than that,” he says, “and consumers are really going to be feeling the pain.”
              So when does Schiff think a rate hike is coming? Schiff believes Janet Yellen and company “will raise rates eventually.” But, he says they will do so "not because they want to, but because they have to, because the markets will give them no choice, because I think what we will have is a currency crisis.”
              Schiff is predicting QE4 and the collapse of the dollar. He says eventually the Fed’s back will be up against the wall. “They are going to have to jack interest rates way up and you know all hell is going to break loose,” he says. “It’s going to make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic.”
              If Schiff spent more time with Fed economists and spoke with Yellen himself he'd come to a different conclusion.

              The USD is not going to collapse. Forget "currency wars."

              With respect to US vs China, Dynamic Cooperation (a broad policy band) is replacing Economic MAD.

              The euro is now taking its turn on the currency depreciation merry-go-round after the yen.

              The USD will be next in 2017 or after.

              Oil is a dead cat bounce. Once the worse-than-expected winter ends and heating fuel oil demand declines we'll see oil supply chain distress. $20 oil this summer is not out of the question.

              The central banks of U.S. and anglo-saxon economies are adopting some of the micro-management policies that China has used for decades.

              The post-market economy is unpredictable but in one respect: Politicians want to stay in power.
              Last edited by EJ; March 20, 2015, 08:13 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

                whoa.... he surfaces... and its schiff who gets a rise out of him ?

                nice to see ya Mr J !

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

                  A man of few words, yet they have profound meaning.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

                    Originally posted by EJ View Post
                    If Schiff spent more time with Fed economists and spoke with Yellen himself he'd come to a different conclusion.

                    The USD is not going to collapse. Forget "currency wars."

                    With respect to US vs China, Dynamic Cooperation (a broad policy band) is replacing Economic MAD.

                    The euro is now taking its turn on the currency depreciation merry-go-round after the yen.

                    The USD will be next in 2017 or after.

                    Oil is a dead cat bounce. Once worse than futures market forecast heating fuel oil demand declines we'll see oil supply chain distress. $20 oil this summer is not out of the question.

                    The central banks of U.S. and anglo-saxon economies have adopted the micro-management policies that China has used for decades.

                    The post-market economy is unpredictable but in one respect: Politicians want to stay in power.

                    Dear Mr. EJ,

                    Would 900$ gold be possible then with oil not as needed anymore. Between conservation, great technology applied on recovering shale reserves (still to be exploited in rest of world) and flattening demographics of population, would there still be be need for insurance for a system that can be made to last.

                    Cheers,
                    Anil
                    If you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

                      Originally posted by akt View Post
                      Dear Mr. EJ,

                      Would 900$ gold be possible then with oil not as needed anymore. Between conservation, great technology applied on recovering shale reserves (still to be exploited in rest of world) and flattening demographics of population, would there still be be need for insurance for a system that can be made to last.

                      Cheers,
                      Anil
                      We will always need oil. Over the past five years or so here in the U.S. we've mined it faster than we've burned it up. The popular media are mistakenly making a logical leap in promoting this temporary imbalance between supply and demand as evidence that there is somehow more oil in the ground now than there was five years ago. Logically there is less, but the short attention span theater nature of the media has lost track of the obvious long-term trend: as the global economy expands oil demand will continue to rise while the planet's limited oil endowment will continue to shrink. I expect Peak Cheap Oil will begin to re-assert in 2017 and oil prices will be back to the $120 to $150 range by 2020.

                      The connection between oil and gold is indirect. We own gold to hedge the result of a future return to less harmonious global central bank policy regime than we have today. The timing of events that are most likely to precipitate this reversion is not predictable but I'm certain oil will be at the heart of it, again.

                      PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.
                      - Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is There a Limit to Financialization?

                        Fed whistle blower quits Wall Street, plans book.

                        http://nypost.com/2015/03/20/fed-whi...t-weighs-book/

                        “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived,” Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          EJ vs Schiff

                          Originally posted by EJ View Post
                          We will always need oil. . . .I expect Peak Cheap Oil will begin to re-assert in 2017 and oil prices will be back to the $120 to $150 range by 2020.

                          The connection between oil and gold is indirect. We own gold to hedge the result of a future return to less harmonious global central bank policy regime than we have today. The timing of events that are most likely to precipitate this reversion is not predictable but I'm certain oil will be at the heart of it, again.
                          But, he says they will do so "not because they want to, but because they have to, because the markets will give them no choice, because I think what we will have is a currency crisis.”
                          Schiff is predicting QE4 and the collapse of the dollar. He says eventually the Fed’s back will be up against the wall. “They are going to have to jack interest rates way up and you know all hell is going to break loose,” he says. “It’s going to make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic.”
                          What are the most important differences between the Janszen Scenario and what Schiff is predicting?

                          I think the fed might raise rates to fend off 10% annual inflation, which is far short of a "currency crisis".
                          However, 10% inflation might spook our international creditors, no?

                          Like Schiff, I think the low interest rates are may be having far reaching and negative consequences. I also think the unemployment numbers are somewhat rigged, just as the inflation numbers are.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: EJ vs Schiff

                            Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                            What are the most important differences between the Janszen Scenario and what Schiff is predicting?...
                            I always thought this was one of the best:

                            The mostly likely triggers of a UST bond market crash are errors due to incompetence, miscalculation, or both. Of all of the possible triggers, I see three as the most likely.

                            In one scenario the U.S. fails to pay 100% of its debt obligations in full and on time. I call it Le Petit Default and the Herd Stampedes. In the second scenario the Fed tries to wean the bond market off ZIRP and discovers that each and every one of the investors in the herd that is collectively holding $10.5 trillion in UST want to be the ones to sell during the first 10 basis point rise out of 100 or 200 or 300 not the ones who sell during the final 10 point rise. I call this one The Fed Whispers and the Herd Stampedes. In the third scenario the world experiences a second Peak Cheap Oil crisis like the one in 2008 but this time colliding with an over-priced UST market rather than an over-priced securitized debt market.
                            and...

                            There are three ways that $10.5 trillion in UST and $37.5 trillion total in over-priced bonds get re-repriced: an accident in early 2013 when a divisive and misinformed Congress fumbles the ball and recreates the 1937 to 1938 mid-gap recession (aka Fiscal Cliff), in 2014 to 2015 when the Fed attempts to let the herd out of its ZIRP cage and hopes for calm but gets panic instead, or any time in between when conflicts in the Middle East produce extended oil supply interruptions in excess of 3% to 5% of daily supply.
                            also...

                            One nightmare scenario for UST is the Treasury that we considered is that the U.S. holds a UST auction and not enough buyers show up. It's known as a bond auction failure...If a UST auction fails it doesn't mean demand for UST has dried up. It implies a level of incompetence at Treasury that has wider implications for the nation as a whole. This is important to understand because if we are looking for signs of an imminent bond crisis of the Janszen scenario we have to know where to look, and it's not in post-auction data.
                            But...
                            China and Japan are not likely to trigger a bond crisis with a surprise decision to not fulfill a standing purchase commitment to the U.S. Treasury.
                            what happens is...

                            1. Currency crisis: exchange rate declines
                            2. Import prices surge driving up all prices in the economy
                            3. The central bank increases the money supply in order to circulate goods and services at the new higher price level
                            4. If the central bank continues to increase the money supply, demand rises and feeds back into prices
                            5. The central bank cancels the old currency and issues a new currency backed by a hard currency
                            6. Exchange rate stabilizes and inflation falls
                            They do not think of themselves as fixing bond prices or manipulating rates, or see anything wrong with selling U.S. foreign policy determination to foreign powers in exchange for UST purchases. They think of themselves as heros for preventing a deflationary depression by "shaping the yield curve" and using the Fed's balance sheet to de-risk financial markets. It's insanity, of course, but it's important to remember that the original act of insanity was allowing the U.S. economy to become leveraged on mortgage debt to nearly 100% of GDP.

                            The Janszen Scenario is about how -- and possibly when -- the Fed and U.S. run out of credit trying to support the over-indebted U.S. economy to prevent its collapse into a deflationary depression. I hope readers find that this analysis takes us a step closer to a firm answer. They will try and try and try to keep the economy from falling back into recession until eventually the Fed and the U.S. runs out of credit and the UST market implodes.
                            but...

                            Before that, the U.S. will use gold reserves to halt the process and reset the exchange rate value of the USD.
                            and...

                            We took our gold position for the eventuality of a U.S. currency and bond crisis more than a decade ago.
                            which is great because...

                            The last global credit market bubble collapse ended when government spending by major economies rose to more than 100% of GDP. The demands of military service put such a massive and sudden drain on the civilian labor force wage rates grew so much that wage caps were needed. Consumer products industrial capacity fell such that Personal Consumption Expenditure declined from 83% to 55% of GDP in five years.

                            That economic restructuring was called WWII. Inflation surged, unemployment fell, debts were cancelled. In the ensuing orgie of mechanized violence tens of millions of bodies piled up.
                            "On Track for a Bond Market Crash - Part II: What will collapse the U.S. Treasury Bond market?"
                            http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...nszen?p=239513
                            Last edited by Woodsman; March 27, 2015, 10:16 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              summarizing EJ

                              Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                              I always thought this was one of the best:





                              "On Track for a Bond Market Crash - Part II: What will collapse the U.S. Treasury Bond market?"
                              http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...nszen?p=239513

                              Thanks WM. I loved that article too. I might try to re-read some of it. It is a lot more detailed than what Schiff says. I think EJ has lowered the probability of a failed bond auction, because the Treasury department lines people up ahead of time, and the fed can pinch hit to some extent. However, when the CB buys too many of the bonds, you are headed for hyper inflation--it's like printing money.

                              And, as if Japan is in a position to buy US debt?

                              The other thing, is that if you divide the US debt by the amount of USA gold (8000 tons?) there just isn't that much gold to go around. How it can become "hard currency" without a MAJOR devaluation relative to gold needs to be explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X