Archive

Finance

If you’ve never paid a visit to Zero Hedge here’s the gist: they have lightning fast reporting of financial news, in depth analysis of global markets, and a wealth of intelligent contributors – however the conclusion is almost always the same: get rid of your fiat money, hoard gold, and brace yourself for the imminent financial armageddon.  With that being said they do often times have some good insights and though provoking commentary.  I’d advise you to set a rule for yourself though: do not do any trading immediately after reading Zero Hedge – give yourself a chance to cool off first, the world is probably not coming to an end quite yet.

The first piece is actually from the WSJ by way of Zero Hedge, featuring PIMCO’s Mohamed El-Erian. Below I’m quoting Zero Hedge quoting El-Erian in the WSJ interview (emphasis added by ZH):

El-Erian’s Summary: “Virtually Every Market Is Trading At Very Artificial Levels”

“In order for central banks to achieve their ultimate economic objective – which is growth and jobs – they have to push investors into taking more risk than is justified,” is the somewhat chilling warning that PIMCO’s Mohamed El-Erian gives in this excellent interview with the WSJ. “Central banks are operating through the wealth effect and animal spirits,” El-Erian says peeling back the truth onion, as they prop up asset prices to “artificial levels, in virtually every market.” Worries over the central bankers of the world withdrawing easy money policies too early are “unwarranted,” he notes, adding that he suspects, “they will most likely stay too long and they will consciously make that mistake.” Critically, though, he sends a message that appears to fit with many of our recent discussions (most recently here) that “if these levels aren’t validated by the fundamentals, then investors will get hurt.”

 

The second piece is an attempt to explain the massive price drop in every Zero Hedge commentator’s investment of choice, gold.  This piece is largely about central / too big to fail banks manipulating the gold market.  The author seems to be your garden variety Zero Hedge contributor, 100% certain there is a huge conspiracy taking place to manipulate the global markets and economy.  He does make some interesting points, however my favorite part of his post is rather benign when compared to the rest of his post – it’s when he lays out the effects of ZIRP.

This Gold Slam is a Massive Wealth Transfer from Our Pockets to the Banks

The central plank of Bernanke’s magic recovery plan has been to get everybody back borrowing, spending, and “investing” in stocks, bonds, and other financial assets.  But not equally so, as he has been instrumental in distorting the landscape towards risk assets and away from safe harbors.

That’s why a 2-year loan to the U.S. government will only net you 0.22%, a rate that is far below even the official rate of inflation.  In other words, loan the U.S. government $10,000,000 and you will receive just $22,000 per year for your efforts and lose wealth in the process because inflation reduced the value of your $10,000,000 by $130,000 per year.  After the two years is up, you are up $44,000 but out $260,000, for net loss of $216,000.

That wealth, or purchasing power, did not just vanish:  It was taken by the process of inflation and transferred to someone else.  But to whom did it go?  There’s no easy answer for that, but the basic answer is that it went to those closest to the printing press.  It went to the government itself, which spent your $10,000,000 loan the instant you made it, and it went to the financiers who play the leveraged game of money who happen to be closest to the Fed’s printing press.

This almost completely explains why the gap between the rich and everyone else is widening so rapidly, and why financiers now populate the top of every Forbes 400 list.  There is no mystery, just a process of wealth transfer of magnificent and historic proportions; one that has been repeated dozens of times throughout history

 

By now you should probably just take it for granted that I recommend reading Hussman’s weekly market commentary.  His most recent commentary is no exception, so go read it.  I especially like his description of quantitative easing:

Meanwhile, all that quantitative easing does, will do, and is capable of doing, is to create the maximum amount of discomfort for the holder of [that cash] at each point in time, in the hope that the burden of zero interest will be sufficient to provoke the holder to exchange that hot potato, which goes on to scald someone else’s hands.

***

Undoubtedly, the eagerness of investors to aggressively buy every dip has been driven by the confidence that quantitative easing supports those actions. Still, I doubt that investors have seriously considered the fact that each round of QE has had successively smaller effects, nor that they have asked themselves exactly the mechanism by which QE “works.”

The reason QE “works” – though with weaker and weaker effects each round, is simple. QE creates an ocean of zero-interest money that must be held by someone at each point in time, and is intended to create as much discomfort as possible for each successive someone. That discomfort drives yield-seeking behavior, and ultimately produces precisely the sort of bubble that is now evident. Having successfully produced that result, investors might want to ask themselves who will relieve them of their positions once they decide to take their profits. Looking around them, and seeing a multitude of investors faced with exactly the same problem, they are unlikely to find the answer in fixed-income retirees and “permabears” except at much lower prices. This is a conversation that investors might want to have with themselves now instead of later. Again, this is not to imply any assurance of an oncoming crash in this instance – maybe the rabbit’s foot will work a while longer – but is instead to note that the conditions that have preceded other major market losses are already well in place.

The Series A Crunch is a hot topic in Silicon Valley.  The overall premise is that the recent boom in early stage seed investments will result in a lot of dead or dying companies that don’t live to see a Series A investment.  Some of these companies may be valuable, whether its their team, IP, or something else.

Earlier this month a list of these companies was available for purchase for $5,000.  The fine folks over at TechCrunch / CrunchBase have put together their own list of nearly 1,300 companies available for free here.

Below is their approach / criteria for identifying these companies.  This is truly akin to panning for gold.

mining_series_a_crunch

  • Start with US companies that closed a seed (or angel) round on or after Jan 1, 2011
  • Exclude companies that have received follow on funding
  • Exclude companies that were acquired
  • Exclude companies without news or employee updates in last 6 months
  • Exclude companies known to have closed
  • Look at remaining companies where it’s been ~13 months since their last funding

Source: CruncBase blog

The Absolute Return Letter: The Need for Wholesale Change

A good read about the state of the markets.  Below you’ll find a hodgepodge of excerpts I found interesting – read the letter in its entirety for a more coherent argument.  Note: everything you read below is a directly quoted excerpt.

Intro & Chart:

On 5 March 2013 the Dow Jones Industrial Average set a new all-time high, surpassing
the previous high of 14,165.50, established back in October 2007. Only the stock
market doesn’t seem to recognise that the world is a very different place today when
compared to 5 ½ years ago. Many investors talk the bearish talk, yet they walk the
bullish walk. This apparent inconsistency is a function of the widespread belief that
central bank policy, whether emanating from Tokyo, Frankfurt, London or
Washington, provides an effective volatility hedge, allowing investors to ignore the
underlying economic and financial problems that continue to simmer. Chart 1 landed
in my inbox a few weeks ago, courtesy of Simon Hunt. A chart often says more than a
thousand words; it certainly does in this case.

Chart 1: Now and Then – 2013 vs. 2007

4-4-2013 4-35-12 PM
Source: Charles de Trenck, Transport Trackers. U.S. data unless otherwise indicated.

The Comedy Called Cyprus

I have long argued that the creation of the European Monetary Union was akin to
reintroducing the gold standard. The eurozone member countries are effectively
locked into a system very similar to the one that proved so hopelessly inadequate
during the great depression in the early 1930s. A monetary union is quite simply the
wrong model for a rapidly ageing Europe, but a combination of ignorance and
stubbornness means that those in charge refuse to see the writing on the wall.

The last couple of weeks have provided ample evidence that the political leadership in Europe is utterly clueless as to how to resolve the crisis. If there were any trust left between the public and our elected leaders that has now been unequivocally broken with the disastrous handling of the crisis in Cyprus.

It is a well known fact that European banks depend more on deposits for their funding requirements whereas U.S. banks tend to primarily use capital markets. The fact that European policymakers were prepared to sacrifice small depositors in Cyprus demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge of this reality. How do they think depositors in other eurozone countries will interpret this blatant attack on private savings? At a time where banks need access to funding more than ever? An invisible line in the sand has been crossed and there is no way back. Next time a bank in a major eurozone country runs into serious difficulties, there is likely to be a bank run, primarily because the trust was broken with the shambolic handling of events in Cyprus. As outgoing BoE Governor Mervyn King once quipped (and Iparaphrase): “It is irrational to start a bank run but, once it gets going, it is perfectly rational to join in.”

Triffin’s Dilema

The chronic U.S. current account deficits of the 1950s and 1960s created a build-up of substantial U.S. dollar reserves in Europe and Asia just like now. Unlike now, however, the creditor nations would redeem those dollars for gold, depleting U.S. gold reserves to the point where they became
dangerously low. Today’s creditor nations redeem their dollars for U.S. Treasuries
instead.

With the U.S. off the gold standard, the ability for the government to honour its
obligations in gold is no longer an issue. It is instead the future purchasing power of
U.S. Treasuries that is at stake; hence the system is still intrinsically unstable.

An Emerging Dollar Bull Market?

Central bankers around the world are obviously aware of all these issues and this is where the story gets interesting. In central bank circles there is a growing realisation that monetary policy as prescribed over the past few years has become largely ineffective. The Bank of England buying another batch of gilts or the Fed acquiring yet more Treasuries has simply lost its va-va-voom.
Central bankers are therefore beginning to realise that they are running out of options in terms of propping up the global economy and something altogether different shall be required. It is in that light that the rumour mill is working overtime. Would it be far-fetched to expect a globally coordinated initiative whereby central banks step in with a groundbreaking new plan as to how the global economy and monetary system should be run?

For that to occur, our political leaders would have to be forced into a corner. That could only happen if the financial system became overwhelmed by yet another crisis. Policy makers simply won’t make the difficult decisions unless there is no other choice. Following that logic, central bankers actually have an interest in, and could do the world a favour by, ‘creating’ another financial crisis. Religiously targeting ZIRP is a good starting point. Near zero percent interest rates encourage risk taking to the extreme as we have seen over the past few years. Extreme risk taking leads to asset bubbles which will ultimately feed a crisis somewhere.

You may think that I have lost my marbles. I am not so sure. None of this is taken out of thin air. I have friends and acquaintances in many strange places around the world and this has come through one of the more trusted channels. Will it happen? I honestly don’t know but it is probably the best shot we’ll have at profoundly changing the monetary infrastructure of the world and for precisely that reason I hope it does happen.

A slightly better chart than the one I posted in my Mt. Bernanke post:

 

“Bull markets are born on pessimism, grown on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria.”  -Sir John Templeton

Found via The Big Picture

 

The article this chart is from is worth a read: Stages in a Bubble – below is the introductory paragraph.

Business cycles are a well understood concept commonly linked with technological innovations, which are often triggering a phase of investment and new opportunities in terms of market and employment. The outcome is economic expansion and as the technology matures and markets become saturated, expansion slows down. A phase of recession is then a likely possibility as a correction is required to clear the excess investment or capacity that irremediably occur in the later stages of an economic cycle. The bottom line is that recessions are a normal condition to a market economy as they are regulating any excess, bankrupting the weakest players or those with the highest leverage. However, one of the mandates of central banking is to fight a process (business cycles) that occurs “naturally”. The interference of central banks such as the Federal Reserve appear to be exaggerating the amplitude of bubbles and the manias that fuel them. It could be argued that business cycles are being replaced by phases of booms and busts, which are still displaying a cyclic behavior, but subject to much more volatility. Although manias and bubbles have taken place many times before in history under very specific circumstances (Tulip Mania, South Sea Company, Mississippi Company, etc.), central banks appear to make matters worst by providing too much credit and being unable or unwilling to stop the process with things are getting out of control (massive borrowing). Instead of economic stability regulated by market forces, monetary intervention creates long term instability for the sake of short term stability.

There is a great article about Warren Buffett’s approach to investing from The American Association of Independent Investors (link).  The article is from January 1998 but the advice is timeless.  Below is a summary of his approach.  The article itself is a quick and easy read, well worth your time.

The Warren Buffett Approach

Philosophy and style
Investment in stocks based on their intrinsic value, where value is measured by the ability to generate earnings and dividends over the years. Buffett targets successful businesses—those with expanding intrinsic values, which he seeks to buy at a price that makes economic sense, defined as earning an annual rate of return of at least 15% for at least five or 10 years.

Universe of stocks
No limitation on stock size, but analysis requires that the company have been in existence for a considerable period of time.

Criteria for initial consideration
Consumer monopolies, selling products in which there is no effective competitor, either due to a patent or brand name or similar intangible that makes the product unique. In addition, he prefers companies that are in businesses that are relatively easy to understand and analyze, and that have
the ability to adjust their prices for inflation.

Other factors
• A strong upward trend in earnings
• Conservative financing
• A consistently high return on shareholder’s equity
• A high level of retained earnings
• Low level of spending needed to maintain current operations
• Profitable use of retained earnings

Valuing a Stock
Buffett uses several approaches, including:

  • Determining firm’s initial rate of return and its value relative to government bonds: Earnings per share for the year divided by the long-term government bond interest rate. The resulting figure is the relative value—the price that would result in an initial return equal to the return paid on government bonds.
  • Projecting an annual compounding rate of return based on historical earnings per share increases: Current earnings per share figure and the average growth in earnings per share over the past 10 years are used to determine the earnings per share in year 10; this figure is then multiplied by the average high and low price-earnings ratios for the stock over the past 10 years to provide an estimated price range in year 10. If dividends are paid, an estimate of the amount of dividends paid over the 10-year period should also be added to the year 10 prices.

Stock monitoring and when to sell
Does not favor diversification; prefers investment in a small number of companies that an investor can know and understand extensively. Favors holding for the long term as long as the company remains “excellent”—it is consistently growing and has quality management that operates for the benefit of shareholders. Sell if those circumstances change, or if an alternative investment offers a better return.

On Sunday the NYT ran an interesting op-ed by former Congressmen and Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman.  The article has an extremely pessimistic outlook for our country and economy; you might even think you were reading Zero Hedge and not the NYT (the only difference is Stockman recommends holding cash as opposed to gold).

He highlights some huge problems facing our nation – the most discouraging is our government’s inability to do anything about them.  Below are a few paragraphs that sum things up.  The whole article is worth your time and attention (link).

 

The future is bleak. The greatest construction boom in recorded history — China’s money dump on infrastructure over the last 15 years — is slowing. Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and all the other growing middle-income nations cannot make up for the shortfall in demand. The American machinery of monetary and fiscal stimulus has reached its limits. Japan is sinking into old-age bankruptcy and Europe into welfare-state senescence. The new rulers enthroned in Beijing last year know that after two decades of wild lending, speculation and building, even they will face a day of reckoning, too.

THE state-wreck ahead is a far cry from the “Great Moderation” proclaimed in 2004 by Mr. Bernanke, who predicted that prosperity would be everlasting because the Fed had tamed the business cycle and, as late as March 2007, testified that the impact of the subprime meltdown “seems likely to be contained.” Instead of moderation, what’s at hand is a Great Deformation, arising from a rogue central bank that has abetted the Wall Street casino, crucified savers on a cross of zero interest rates and fueled a global commodity bubble that erodes Main Street living standards through rising food and energy prices — a form of inflation that the Fed fecklessly disregards in calculating inflation.

These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it can’t happen. It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy. It would require a renunciation of crony capitalism and its first cousin: Keynesian economics in all its forms. The state would need to get out of the business of imperial hubris, economic uplift and social insurance and shift its focus to managing and financing an effective, affordable, means-tested safety net.

All this would require drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.

It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.

It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.

That, of course, will never happen because there are trillions of dollars of assets, from Shanghai skyscrapers to Fortune 1000 stocks to the latest housing market “recovery,” artificially propped up by the Fed’s interest-rate repression. The United States is broke — fiscally, morally, intellectually — and the Fed has incited a global currency war (Japan just signed up, the Brazilians and Chinese are angry, and the German-dominated euro zone is crumbling) that will soon overwhelm it. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse. If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is.

Below are a few excerpts from Tim Duy’s article about the strength of the economic recovery.  Go check out the full article, charts included, here.

The economy has proved to be very resilient.  We have weathered external demand shocks, external financial crises, and even fiscal contraction, and all the while economic activity continued to grind higher.  Looking back, it seems that the biggest risk the economy faced was the Fed’s start/stop approach to quantitative easing.  That problem appears solved with open-ended QE linked to economic guideposts.

At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, I am going to go out on a limb:  The recovery is here to stay.  Not “stay” as in “permanent.”  I am not predicting the end of the business cycle.  But “stay” until some point after the Federal Reserve begins to raise interest rates, which I don’t expect until 2015. This doesn’t mean you need to be happy about the pace of growth.  But it does mean that a US recession in the next three years should be pretty far down on your list of concerns.

His take is based on strength in (1) industrial production, (2) retail sales, (3) the housing market, and (4) employment.

What does this mean for the market?  Good question, nobody can be sure – but its certainly possible to see equities contract while the underlying economy continues to improve.  Just read the previous posts highlighting John Hussman’s bearish take on the markets.  Whatever the markets do, lets hope the economic recovery stays intact and at least provides a buoy should Mr. Market freak out.

Also, lets take into account the forward looking nature of equities, after all any real investor worrying about fundamentals should be thinking a minimum of 3-5 years out (despite the majority of Wall Street focusing on the next quarter or two).  This will put fundamental / value investors in the uncomfortable position of factoring in the Fed’s exit well ahead of the rest of the market, if not already.

Tim’s bottom line:

Bottom Line:  The US economy is less fragile than commonly believed; it has endured a series of shocks over the last three years without major incident.   I am claiming neither that equity prices won’t stumble, nor that we should be happy with the pace of activity.  But I do think that a recession is unlikely before the Federal Reserve begins raising interest rates – something not likely to happen for two years.  While long-run predictions are dangerous, for the sake of argument add up to another two years for tighter policy to reverberate through the economy and you are looking at sometime around 2016/2017 when the next recession hits.  That’s the timeframe I am currently thinking about.

Last week I highlighted John Hussman’s contrarian view of the market.  Hussman’s market commentary this week is full of more pearls of wisdom that are worth highlighting.  And no, he has not turned bullish:

The present environment is characterized by unusually overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions, with rising 10-year Treasury bond yields, heavy insider selling, valuations on “forward earnings” appearing reasonable only because profit margins are more than 70% above historical norms (fully explained by the negative sum of government and personal savings as a share of GDP), with the S&P 500 at a 4-year market high, in a mature market advance, with lagging employment indicators still positive but more than half of all OECD countries already in GDP contraction, Europe in recession, Britain on the cusp, and the EU imposing massive losses on depositors in order to protect lenders in an unstable banking system where Cyprus is the iceberg’s tip. Investors have assumed a direct link between money creation and stock market performance, where provoking yield-seeking and discomfort among conservative investors is the only transmission mechanism of a nearly-insolvent Fed. Investors have assumed that stocks can be properly valued on the basis of a single year of earnings reflecting the benefit of massive fiscal deficits, depressed household saving, and extraordinary monetary distortion – when the more relevant long-term stream of earnings will enjoy far less benefit. Historically, extreme overvalued, overbought, overbullish, rising-yield syndromes have outweighed both trend-following and monetary factors, on average. For defensiveness to be inappropriate even in this environment, investors must rely on the present instance to be a radical outlier.

I especially like his notion of “The Hook”, a term that appears to be coined by Richard Russell:

“Every bull and bear market needs a ‘hook.’ The hook in a bear market is whatever the bear serves to keep investors and traders thinking that everything is going to be all right. There is always a hook.” – Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, November 2000 (S&P 1400)

The “hook” today is the dramatically elevated, deficit-induced level of profit margins. While the complete faith of investors in the Federal Reserve may prove to be the hook for ordinary investors, it’s not enough to draw in more careful observers. The real hook, in my view, is the absence of a bubble in any individual sector, and instead a bubble in profit margins across the entire corporate sector. That is the hook that serves to keep investors and traders thinking that everything is going to be all right.

Buyer beware.  Do yourself a favor and go read the entire piece here.

 

“Everybody’s got to find their own way. Listening to me, maybe it’s fun, maybe it’s boring, who knows, you’re not going to succeed until you find your own way. I mean if you’re a musician you’ve got to find your own sound, your own way. Great musicians through history were the people who had their own madness, and were proud of their madness, especially if it was not what everybody else is doing. Well, the same is true of art, literature, politics, finance…especially finance. Yeah, you can copy other people, and many people do, that’s why everybody invests in the same thing, and that’s why it winds up being a bad investment. No, you’ve got to figure out your own way, no matter how absurd your way may sound, especially if your own way sounds absurd to others, you should pursue it even harder. You can learn from other people, but don’t try to be like Joe or Sally, try to be like yourself.” – Jim Rogers in Investor Guide

Found via Jim Rogers Blog