Pound up…

Euro down…

Aussie pulling back…

Canadian giving way…

Yen losing ground…

October is coming to an end, and we haven’t really seen hide nor hair of any terrifying market moves or monstrous returns to the old days of dollar safety, when anything that even had a scent of risk was spurned as foolhardy investing.

But as of now, the dollar has been tanking and anything that is paying a higher interest rate has been soaring, thanks in part to the hawkish comments and actions by the Reserve Bank of Australia, but mostly due to the boneheaded actions of the United States.

Any way you put it, when a man shows up and says, “Hello! I’m from the government and I’m here to help” — RUN. As fast as you can. RUN.

We are following in the footsteps of Japan. Should this continue, we will have to replace our Stars and Strips with a new flag, ”The Land of the Setting Sun.”

No Happy Ending for the Dollar

We’re now at a 9.8% unemployment rate, and we lost a jaw-dropping 263,000 jobs in September. Now it’s true this isn’t the 700,000 we were losing not so long ago. But it still is not awe-inspiring evidence of a recovery.

The euro’s meteoric rise was on the G-7’s agenda this week. But before we start jumping up and down for joy as the powers that be begin pushing the euro back down (and the dollar up), I must confess that I smell a rat.

The folks at the European Central Bank have not been too worried about the strengthening euro up to this point. That could always change. But for now, they seem to be enjoying this appreciation. For them it acts as a nominal rate increase, which will keep inflation in check should it appear. But don’t get me wrong. Central bankers are men just like us (only often with a lot less common sense). They can get blinders on and only see things a certain way. After all, don’t all humans usually see things the way we want to see them? And this can handicap them when it comes to reading the data — the same way it can handicap us. Should they allow the euro to rise too much and too early, it will crush their budding recovery… much to their surprise and chagrin.

That being said, the dollar is in a bad way. Aside from the sheer size of its GDP, and the fact that historically it has managed to pull its fat out of the fire, I’m not sure what we can look at currently to construct any happy outcome for the dollar. That’s it, plain and simple.

The Dollar Will Be Let Down Gently

But nothing, not even the dollar, falls all at once. Hence all this jawboning about the euro (and yen, while were at it) being too expensive. None of these foreign economies can afford to let the dollar fall too much, too quickly. Thus, if they continue to badmouth the strength of their own currencies, it buoys the dollar and gives them opportunities to get out at a better price. But they can’t dump too much on the market all at once. If investors get wind of that, the big boys will have a harder time getting their target price.

So it seems to me that we should be looking for another return to dollar strength. That would play right into the hands of foreign economies that are looking to quietly unload the dollar. It is also the reason I don’t think we should look for the dollar to go into freefall — it is simply too costly for our trading partners. I believe they will do all they can to allow themselves an exit at a decent price.

No matter what may happen to the dollar’s reserve status in the decades to come, it will retain this status for a long, long time. Thus in this great tug of war between the currencies, there will always come periods when the dollar will be viewed as too cheap, and those who need it for continued trading purposes will not be able to resist the drive to buy it.

No Dollar Strength from This “Recovery”

For our last note, let me reassure you, dollar strengthening will not come as a result of the recovery we are supposedly in.

The stimulus has not performed as promised. A quick look at the figures from last November to the present will reveal it was no panacea:

Unemployment
November ’08: 6.6%
October ’09: 9.8%  (up 50%)

GDP
November ’08: $14.3 trillion
2nd quarter ’09: $14.1 trillion (down .25%)

Housing starts
November ’08: 655,000
October ’09: 590,000 (down 10%)

Food stamps participants
November ’08: 31.1 million
July ’09: 35.9 million (up 15%)

Home mortgages underwater
November ’08: 15 million
October ’09: 25 million (up 66%)

Deficit
November ’08: $450 billion
October ’09: $1.5 trillion (up 300%)

Looking for a Dollar Bounce

Let’s sum up. I am looking for a bounce in the dollar (and I have been since mid- September). I thought that perhaps the fall season might be enough to bring it on. That hasn’t happened. That’s not the same as saying it isn’t in the cards. We are now in the midst of the new equities earnings season. J.P. Morgan produced stellar figures that pumped risk appetite into the market strong and hard. Other corporations may not be able to do as well.

It seems to me that this rally is already on thin ice. At any rate, the dollar will bounce. It will likely end up being a bigger move than most anticipate and it will be fueled by fear and short covering. Then, when the big boys have had enough, the course will be reversed, fundamentals will resume their place, and the dollar will begin its drift toward the nether regions once again.

It is a treacherous pathway before us, but it should yield us some really nice profits if we position ourselves accordingly.

Due to the increased interest in currencies, the NASDAQ now offers an easy way for anyone to play up to ten currencies against each other. Click here to for the full fact sheet on the NASDAQ currency options. So you can do your positioning to take advantage of the coming strength in the dollar…and in the dollar’s ultimate decline.

Regards,
Bill Jenkins

October 22, 2009

Dollar Strength Then the Decline Resumes was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

They talking, of course, about the Australians decision to hike their central bank index rate. And instantly the howls of recovery were on the lips of all the pundits.

But the recovery at large is still not on the horizon.

We may be facing a serious battle with deflation, and that the evidence is all around us, Australia notwithstanding. And now we have seen more than just anecdotal evidence.

A few days ago, the United Kingdom, which has been struggling with a weakening currency, released inflation numbers far below expectations. Not only was inflation lower than expected; the figures were actually negative.

What does that mean? Well, when inflation numbers turn negative, that is deflation. And England wasn’t alone.

The number one economy in the Eurozone, Germany, released numbers that said the same thing. Prices are not increasing, they are decreasing… and at a surprising rate!

That’s contrary to conventional wisdom, which says that the bloated money supply should be raising prices. But as I explained last week, that money supply isn’t natural — it’s being created on a whim by the central back and being pushed into its member banks.

From there, it is being held against the mountain of derivative losses, bad loans and investments, instead of flowing into the economy at large through lending.

That lack of lending is what’s preventing inflation. It won’t show up until the money is released to the public. Until then, the money supply has not effectively changed or expanded… and we’ll continue to see deflation.

Deflation, in turn, will lead to longer periods of extended “non-growth” and lower interest rates — at least in the places where they can be lowered. Where they cannot be lowered, “stimulus ad nauseam” will remain the protocol of the day.

But, of course, a flat-broke country can’t stimulate unless it can borrow. We are not like China with $2 trillion in reserves. Staying afloat requires borrowing unparalleled in history. The problem is, now that we aren’t buying the world’s widgets, the world is far less inclined to loan us anything. After all, that’s the way the game has been played. They lend to us — we buy from them. And everybody was happy. But you just can’t borrow forever.

So if deflation is going to be the name of the game, what happens to the currency markets?

Thomas Jefferson Fears the Federal Reserve

To answer that question, first we need to determine which currencies are going to move in which direction. That will continue to unfold over time. But it will likely lead to the currencies of the West doing a slow gyrating dance. Neither currency is better than any of the others, so they will just move back and forth until one of them gets their debt and banking situation under control.

Very possibly, the first nation to get rid of its central bank will be the first to really break out.

Because as we all should be well aware by now, central banks exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to bailout their banker buddies who, in the pursuit of greater profit, have made risky loans… to bail out large industries in order to preserve the job base… and to make sure that the taxpayers foot the bill. They will masquerade it in the best of terms, but at the end of the day, we are paying for their foolish business practices.

The sooner we do away with a central bank, the richer we all will be. This is not our first experiment with a central bank in the United States, but it has been our most costly. Our forefathers vehemently opposed the idea of a central bank for just this reason.

They believed that such a cartel would rape and pillage the public and increase poverty on a massive scale, until there is nothing left to take.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”

Amazing, isn’t it? Here’s a man who, two centuries ago, understood why central banks brought themselves into existence. The Federal Reserve in the United States has done nothing to improve our lot and has done everything it can to extort our wealth by the tax of inflation, then to export it to economies and dictators who live like massive welfare recipients off of the taxes your fathers have paid, and you continue to pay, and your children will have to pay.

And it will remain like this until the Fed is abolished again. As I mentioned, the population of the United States has closed more than one central bank. Former presidential hopefuls even lost their bids to the White House over their stand in favor of a central bank. Until such a day as we are sufficiently educated again to see them as a menace to our wealth and way of life, until we take it in hand to dismantle the Fed as it is, we will continue to suffer the expropriation of our hard-earned money to those who act as our overlords.

Problem is, I seriously doubt that will happen within our lifetimes. Look how long it’s taken us just to consider a bill that audits the Fed.

In the meantime, I recommend you take your capital to the place it’s treated best.

That specific place, however, is yet to be determined. Will it be Australia — the first ones to hike rates? Will be China – the almighty ones holding a financial nuclear option?

I can’t say for sure.

But I can say that, over the long run, it won’t be the greenback.

If you’re looking for a way out, diversifying your savings into another currency through the FOREX markets is an easy way to do it.

Regards,
Bill Jenkins

October 15, 2009

Who Needs a Central Bank? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Last week, Ben Bernanke got the nod for another stint as head of the world’s most important central bank. Yes, he completely misunderstood the implications of the hugely negative US trade balance, believing that America did the world a favor by spending its “global saving glut.” And, yes, he missed the approach of the biggest financial disaster in three generations. Then, when it arrived, he mistook it for a routine recession, until finally, panicked by the collapse of Lehman Bros., he insisted that Congress pass a $750 billion spending bill – or “we may not have an economy on Monday.”

But except for things that really matter, he’s been a pretty good Fed chief. Besides, he has the right credentials. He was a professor of economics at Princeton and holds a Ph.D. from MIT – just like the most recent Nobel Prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman.

The United States has just averted the Second Great Depression, say the papers. “What saved us?” asks Krugman in a recent New York Times editorial. “Big government,” is his answer. Specifically, the big government of Ben Bernanke.

But the ghost of Milton Friedman haunts the central bank. Bernanke borrowed a phrase from Friedman, saying he’d even “drop money from helicopters,’ if necessary, to prevent deflation. This led to one of the surest trades of the Bubble Era was the so-called on the ‘Bernanke Put.’ Investors thought they could count on him. Buy stocks. If they went down, Ben Bernanke would make sure you didn’t lose. He’d add liquidity until the market bounced back. But the Bernanke Put trade went bad in ‘07. The market fell. Ben Bernanke added liquidity. But so far, stocks have yet to regain 50% of what they lost. Meanwhile, consumer prices are falling. And yet, he does not drop money from helicopters. Why not?

Few people would have more authority on the subject than the group gathered at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles earlier this year. Michael Milken, the Junk Bond King, gathered them thither and picked up the tab for Gary Becker, Myron Scholes, and Roger Myerson…each of their names is preceded by ‘Nobel Prize winner.’ With that kind of brainpower on hand, you’d think you could come up with a good explanation. But the best they could do was a simple analogy. Gary Becker (Nobel awarded ‘92) took the Friedman line; he argued that by putting out the little forest fires, the recessions of the ’90s and the early ’00s, the feds inadvertently created the conditions for an even greater conflagration. Instead of burning off the underbrush, the tinder built up until a huge blaze was inevitable. And in a speech honoring Friedman, Bernanke accepted Friedman’s criticism of the Fed in the ’30s. Yes, Bernanke admitted, the Fed made mistakes; but we won’t do it again, he said. The burden of today’s rumination is that he was wrong; he will do it again.

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” said Friedman. But deflation doesn’t seem to be a monetary phenomenon at all. Despite huge inputs of new money from the Fed, prices are still going down. The Fed’s balance sheet more than doubled in the last 18 months. It will probably double again – to $4 trillion – before Bernanke’s next term is over.

Friedman won a Nobel Prize for his work. And he drew around him a community of scholars that won so many Nobel Prizes they ran out of room in the University of Chicago trophy cabinet. But it only makes you wonder about the Nobel committee. Friedman’s acolytes won their prizes for elaborating a series of mathematical proofs for things that were either self-evident or self-evidently absurd. Most of them were later shown to be wrong, irrelevant or misleading. Modern Portfolio Theory, Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model, Dynamic Hedging – the farther afield the scholars went, the more they lost touch with home. The more scientific their work became, the more it resembled alchemy or phrenology.

Friedman’s work itself was flawed in the same way. The general principle was correct – that the government that governs the markets least governs best. But when he got into the mechanics of ‘monetarism,’ he got lost. He believed that if the Fed kept its eye on the money supply; the free market would take care of everything else. But the free market didn’t take care of everything, at least not as people hoped. Economist Murray Rothbard explained why in 1971. You cannot expect the free market to function perfectly if you leave in the hands of the government the power to control money. Either markets are free or they aren’t, was Rothbard’s point. If they’re not free, you can’t blame freedom when they fail.

But free market economists are now blamed for everything. The free- market Chicago boys are out. The MIT crowd is in. And investors are buying the Bernanke Put again, confident that the Fed chief will keep pushing money into the system and stocks will continue rising. But Ben Bernanke, for all his bluster, is a victim of the trade. Everyone knows what he is up to. They can’t help but look ahead and see where it leads.

As soon as Bernanke starts his helicopter engines, bond buyers get out their missiles; the Chinese – the biggest single customer for US debt – have warned that they will shoot him down. What can Bernanke do? He is damned if he doesn’t. But even more damned if he does. He can’t guarantee increases in either CPI or stocks. All he guarantees is that Big Government will play a larger role in the economy…and that Milton Friedman’s history of the Great Depression will turn out to be prophecy:

“The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession… into a major catastrophe…”

Ultimately, Bernanke does what his predecessors at the Fed did in the ’30s…and what the Japanese did in the ’90s. He hesitates. He makes mistakes.

And he wonders why he took the damned job in the first place.

Regards,
Bill Bonner

September 1, 2009

Bernanke to Keep Blocking the Free Market was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

This has been quite a month so far, with healthcare taking center stage in the national debate. There have been rallies, shouting, fights and town hall meetings with unbelievable attendance. And, a line that I’ll bet the president wishes he could take back.

Addressing that he wants us to believe that private insurance will still be available and that you will still have options, President Obama commented, “If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

Is that really what he intended to say? Does that really offer any rational support for setting up a government insurance program? He admits that the government-run postal service is failing, while its private competitors are thriving. Now, I know that public speakers are famous for their gaffs, but that one directly contradicts what he’s trying to say!

Support for the plan appears to be at an all-time low — according to a recent poll by a Rasmussen, down to just 42%.

But let’s get to the news and some longer-term commentary for the day. According to a Wall Street Journal poll, 98% approve of Ben Bernanke being re-appointed for four more years at the helm of the Federal Reserve. Citing the importance of continuity, he was given overwhelming support for bringing us through the recent difficult times.

Really?

SAME PLAY, DIFFERENT ACTS

One book I recommend reading is The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It is an excellent treatment of the origin and goals of the Federal Reserve. I am surprised at the number of people who have never even heard of this book. It ought to be required reading in all civics classes — if they even teach that stuff anymore. Actually, I was shocked when a friend who I highly respect in our industry recently commented to me that he was just reading this for the first time.

So if you’ve never read it, get a copy. It’s available in plenty of places online. The book is a large one, and intimidating to those who are only occasional readers. But it is well worth the effort, and a real eye-opener as to why things have played out the way they have over the last year and a half.

Tracing the founding of the central bank in the United States, Griffin clearly demonstrates how and why it was formed, and how it is functioning EXACTLY as planned. The Federal Reserve is not America’s first attempt at a central bank, but all others were eventually shut down because they were recognized for what they really are — an attempt to create a cartel of bankers who, with Congressional support (even though they are not a federal agency), constantly overextend themselves in the pursuit of higher and higher profits. And when the game is up, it uses its Congressional “connection” to foist the losses onto the American taxpayer.

It always occurs with the same themes: “Too big to fail”… or “The first domino to fall in a nationwide/worldwide catastrophe.”

Each successive failure became more massive than the previous one, and a strategy emerged — start discussing amounts of money so big that the average citizen was simply mind-boggled by the size of them. As generations of public dis-education came home to roost, people increasingly believed that economics was the realm of governments rather than markets. And with that fallacy came the ingrained idea that money comes from the government, so it is the only entity able to create the resources to “correct” gargantuan fiscal shortfalls.

Of course what “everyman” missed was that the government’s creation of money out of nothing simply fleeced the citizenry in the form of the hidden tax of inflation.

Let’s take a quick and closer look at this sordid history.

I catalogued for you recently one of the failures of the central bank. It was purportedly established to stop market crashes and end recessions. But we have seen recessions in ’53, ’57, ’69, ’75 and ’81, the crashes of ’21 and ’29, the Great Depression I, Black Monday in 1987 and the current lollapalooza of 2008-?

But one of the Fed’s other foundational reasons for existence was to reduce competition from outside banks, as previously mentioned. It also planned to foster an attitude of easy lending, perpetual indebtedness and constant loan rollovers and interest charges. Then when the jig is finally up, and the indebted families, corporations or nations can no longer even afford the interest payments, the debt burden will be passed to the unsuspecting taxpayer by way of inflation.

Since the inception of the Fed, the game has been managed very well. Smaller banks were allowed to fail, just as they are now. This gives the appearance of “letting the market work.”

Let’s look at some of the worst of the big bailouts, just so you can see get a grasp of what has happened, what will happen and how that affects your money.

SAVING BAD BUSINESSES BY STEALING YOUR MONEY 

Penn Central was the nations’ leading railroad prior to 1970. And it was a pretty egregious example of how far bankers were willing to go to bilk money out of a cash cow.

Penn starting getting deeply into debt. Its loans were rolled over, and more money was forwarded to keep operations going, which included servicing interest on their current debt. But as things got worse, the huge banks who were in on the play, which included Continental Illinois, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank, Manufacturer’s Hanover and First National City, agreed to continue the loans only if the banks’ officers were put on the railroad’s operating board.

So essentially, the bankers lent themselves money and were in cahoots with the whole game. Also, they were privy to information about the railroad and its stock far ahead of the public. They used this information for their own private profit as the railroad bit the dust. Public records showed that the top executives saved themselves more than $1 million dollars by the sale of stock ahead of the public. A million saved is a million earned.

After all the banks who were called in to support the railroad with cash funds were given complete assurance that the Fed would guarantee the loans, the bailout was a done deal. Immediately all the unionized employees of the failing enterprise were given 13.5% raises. In the end, the Fed authorized loan guarantees of $125 million.

This was never really intended to solve the problem, and a year later the railroad was nationalized and its passenger service became Amtrak. It is a government-run enterprise to this day and continues to operate at a massive loss… only staying open with further governmental subsidies.

The freight side of Penn Central became Conrail, with the government owning 85% of its stock. Fortunately it was sold in a public offering in 1987, staged an impressive comeback and operates at a profit.

At the same time, defense giant Lockheed was also on the edge of bankruptcy. It was $400 million in debt, and Bank of America, along with several other smaller banks, were anxious to keep the milk flowing. Eventually, they marshaled an army of interested parties and went to Washington. They claimed that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, along with suppliers and subcontractors who would be forced into bankruptcy if Lockheed were allowed to fail. So the government gave them an additional $250 billion in guarantees. That increased their total indebtedness 60%.

Of course, the government had a not-so-secret desire to see Lockheed pay off these debts, and the only way it could do that would be to earn more money. So the company became the chief winner of no-bid contracts and recipients of other governmental work. In the meantime, other defense contractors suffered, since they were essentially pushed out of the whole process in the rush to save Lockheed.

In the mid-’70s, New York City was pursuing the same path. Waste and overspending abounded in this gigantic welfare experiment. By 1975, NYC had sold so many bonds, the market was flooded with them, and there were no more lenders. Well, almost no more. Chase Manhattan and Citicorp were the banks that were benefiting the most from interest paid on these debt, but when the day finally came that interest payments were halted, both bankers and city leaders put together a caravan to Washington, D.C.

Same game plan: Threats of halting essential services… no firemen… no police… no garbage pickup. Rioting and anarchy in the streets. Spreading disease. In New York City? This could have international repercussions.

Out came the federal checkbook and draft was made for $2.3 billion, double what the city already owed. Even though there were a number of conditions placed upon the loan to balance the NYC budget and get a surplus to pay off these debts, none of them were ever honored. The city remains in debt to this day.

Then there was Chrysler for $1.5 billion.

Unity Bank, which eventually cost taxpayers just under $4.5 million.

Commonwealth Bank of Detroit, which enjoyed a $1.5 billion fed bailout — then was eventually sold to First Arabian Corporation, a firm funded by Saudi princes.

First Pennsylvania Bank was carrying $328 million in questionable loans, $16 million more than the entire stock float of the company. They received a $325 million loan from the FDIC.

Continental Illinois was the nations’ seventh-largest bank. It had assets of $42 billion, thousands of employees around the globe and an annual income of $254 million by 1981. Unfortunately, its stellar growth was based on shaky loans to risky businesses and foreign governments who could not obtain financing anywhere else.

Its stock was doing wonderfully, and it was named one of the five best-managed banks in the country. But as they began to reap the risk they had sown, the worlds’ first electronic bank run began. Customers were blissfully unaware, but the biggest depositors began withdrawing their funds, and the business was rumored to be in trouble. Creditors raised their interest rates to the banks and began withdrawing funds. In just four days, Continental’s withdrawals were so heavy, they were forced to go to the Fed for a $3.6 billion loan to cover them. Several banks extended a 30-day line of credit, but it was of no use. Within a week, the bank’s outflow ballooned to over $6 billion.

In the end, Continental’s liabilities (including those off-book) totaled $69 billion. Only about $3 billion of that was FDIC insured. The final bailout was more complicated than I can go into here. But just know that the bank was bailed out, and the taxpayers were stuck with the bill.

Then comes the subprime fiasco of 2008. Notice the fact beyond debate, that the Fed did not come to the rescue of the subprime borrowers. Nope — it rescued the banks. It was for this purpose that it was designed, and it continues in its mission today.

All in the name of preventing catastrophe, protecting the public and providing “liquidity” to the markets.

The multibillion-dollar bailout engineered last year is only chump change to what it will eventually cost the taxpayer. Protect the banks — fleece the public.

So what does all this have to do with us and options? Allow me to bring it home…

THE FED DOESN’T EXIST TO HELP YOU

The key point here is that central banks do not exist for the good of economies. They do not exist for the good of citizens. Their sole purpose is to keep the game going, and to profit from it as long as possible. After that, they clear out, leaving the taxpayers to pay off their debts. Their protection and enhancement of economies and citizens is just a means to end. As long as it helps the profits roll in, helping others is fine. But in the end, they will foist responsibility to others.

So we have to expect central banks to do whatever will profit the most and keep the game going. But, of course, in the end, you reap what you sow. It’s true for all men, including central bankers.

The fact that 98% believe that Ben Bernanke should be re-appointed to his post is evidence of the widespread misunderstanding of what he and his predecessors have done.

Regards,
Bill Jenkins

August 17, 2009

The Fed is Stealing Your Money was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Like snow at high altitudes, the central banks’ new money is piling up. As reported last week, all the world’s major central banks have turned on their snow machines. The U.S. Federal Reserve has been authorized to “print” $1.75 trillion worth of new money in order to buy Treasury bonds. The Bank of England has its own program — worth 75 billion pounds, so far. Even Switzerland has been printing money — so much that its money supply, as measured by M2, is growing at 30% per year. And two weeks ago, the European Central Bank announced that it too would begin creating money in order to buy corporate bonds.

“Quantitative easing” it is called. As a refresher for readers with real lives and better things to do, QE is how central banks describe what is essentially an act of counterfeiting. They buy bonds with money created — electronically — specifically for that purpose. Abracadabra — “money” comes into being.

The feds aim to provide liquidity for the cities and farms. But so far, only a trickle is coming down. Instead, chilly weather in the upper reaches of the financial sector holds it frozen in place. Hundreds of billions come down from central banks, but there it stays…waiting for spring.

Today, here on the back page, we ask ourselves a simple question: What will happen to it?

The feds’ counterfeit money does such a good imitation of the real thing, you can’t tell them apart. But the problem with all money is that it is as fickle and unreliable as a bad girlfriend. One minute she goes along with the flow. The next minute she turns silly and bubbly. And then, she gives you the cold shoulder.

According to theory, an increase in the supply of something leads directly to a decrease in the price of it… That is, if other things remain constant. Despite the credit crunch, the banking freeze-up, and the economic recession, the money supply in the U.S. as measured by M1 is actually rising at 14% per year. Yet consumer prices are not keeping pace. The latest report shows them actually going down slightly over the last 60 days.

Turns out, causing inflation is not as easy as it looked; controlling it probably will be even harder. It’s not enough to manage the quantity of money; you also need to be able to control its behavior. Money can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas depending upon the temperature of the economy. At normal temperatures, money runs freely, watering the economy. And when things really get hot, it vaporizes, creating gaseous bubbles such as those of the late Bubble Period. But when the temperature falls, money shivers in wallets and bank accounts — reluctant to go out into the cold.

Economists refer to the “velocity of money” to describe the magnifying effects of motion. When the same dollar bill appears in three different places in the same day, it is as if the money supply has been multiplied threefold. In a freeze, on the other hand, it comes to a dead stop.

When the thaw will come we don’t know. But the authorities are ready for it. When consumer prices begin to rise, they’ll stop adding to the money supply. Then, they’ll withdraw liquidity, as need be, to keep it under control.

They know that runaway inflation would cause problems — the collapse of the dollar…and the U.S. Treasury bond market, for example. So at the first signs of inflation, they will move quickly to remove excess liquidity from the system. How? Their emergency plan is simple enough. Now they are buying bonds. When their inflation targets are met, they will begin selling them.

We thought the Bubble Epoch was the peak in claptrap and illusions. But we were only in the foothills. The feds now pretend to bail out the economy by giving money to companies that pretend to be concerned, run by people who pretend to know what they are doing. And when they run short of money, they create more of it, pretend it is real…and pretend they can tell it what to do.

What is likely is that money will have a mind of its own. First, the markets will react…and the authorities will not. They will remember their own critiques of Japanese and Roosevelt-era monetary policy. In both cases, they believe central banks removed the punch bowl too early — before the party really got rolling. In both cases, the recovery was cut off.

Then, while they are hesitating, money will turn on them. Inflation rates will rise further. The velocity of money will pick up. And investors — including foreign governments — will become eager sellers of government debt. Suddenly, it will be too late. In order to remove the monetary inflation they previously added, central banks will have to sell bonds, instead of buying them, trying to reabsorb money from the economy. The extra cash will then disappear back into the central banks. But in order to bring inflation under control, the biggest bond buyers in the world must turn into the world’s biggest sellers. Bond prices, already falling as investors fear the worst, will collapse immediately. An avalanche of dollars will fall upon the world markets — as dollar holders all over the world become desperate to get rid of them.

We don’t know what day it will happen. But we have a good idea as to what time of day central bankers will realize that they are doomed. About 4 AM is our guess. That is the moment when Ben Bernanke and other central bankers begin to feel like members of the Donner Party. That is, like imbeciles.

Regards,
Bill Bonner

May 29, 2009

Treasury Bond Avalanche was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

When, on top of the central bank making interest rates absurdly low, and the Barney Franks and other do-gooders urging banks to loan to the unworthy and threaten to fine them if they didn’t, a lot of bad loans were made by bankers to those who were irresponsible.  They had to, because a Jimmy Carter “Community Reinvestment Act,” would cause the irresponsible bankers to get sued if they didn’t make bad loans. In addition to the pressure from the CRA, ACORN was blocking bank drive through lanes with pickets, and threatening banks if they didn’t make bad loans.  Loans requiring no money down were made by the thousands.  All you needed was to be a minority, or a bad credit risk, have a low income, and want a home.  Sort of like the Bol Weevil in the song.  “Jus lookin’ for a home.”

Homes were being bought so fast, and with such easy mortgages, that home builders decided to build to meet the demand.  With the good times rolling, developers borrowed, bought land, built streets, sewer lines, underground utilities, and waited for spec house builders to show up and buy the lots.  A few did, but by then, the crash had started.  There’s thousands of empty lots on hundreds of empty developments in America today.

Banks might not have been so irresponsible, but for the fact that if they made a bad loan, they immediately sold it off to Freddie and Fanny, thereby releasing them from any risk.  Fanny and Freddie, then bundled the loans in batches, and sold them to everyone who would buy them.  When the bundled packages of mortgages were rated at AAA by rating agencies such as Moody’s, how could they lose?

Cheap money is what it was, and everyone was partaking.  Cheap money draws people like flies to honey. More dollars were created between the years 2000 and 2007 than in the entire history of America, and that’s nothing compared to what’s going on now. From 1998 to 2006, home prices went up 150%.  Homes didn’t change; only their prices.  Mortgages were given to virtually anyone, who immediately sold them to Fanny and Freddie, who resold them in attractive “AAA” rated packages to investors around the world.  Everyone was off the hook! Victims are the buyers of the packaged mortgages which were falsely rated “AAA.”  Home prices got so high, and the flippers of houses did so well, that when the obvious peak was reached and the bubble would simply have to pop, guess who was holding the bag?  Governments, pension funds, central banks, individuals, and you name it.  Why shouldn’t someone buy a packaged group of “AAA” rated mortgages?  Besides, the mortgage packages were insured by AIG, the world’s largest insurer.  How many hundred billion to AIG so far?  Then, brilliant Wall Streeters decided to place huge bets on the phenomena, called ‘derivatives.’  Hundreds of trillions of dollars worth.

Fanny and Freddie are government backed institutions, “too big to fail,” have been bailed out, and operate at the instructions, funding, and power of the Congress.  When the Barney Franks told Fannie and Freddie to make sub-prime loans to help the poor and worthless, they did, and told banks to send them all they wanted.  They did, and made even more bad, sub-prime loans to virtually anyone who walked in the door.  Mortgages were so easy, that thousands of people became “Mortgage Brokers” overnight, and set up in shopping centers and any available office space.  Everyone was having a blast!  Commissions and points were flying around like trailers in a hurricane. When the peak was reached, a chain reaction was started, which hasn’t stopped, nor reached the bottom yet.

All the while, before the peak was reached, the majordomos of economics, such as Sir Alan Greenspan, were encouraging people to get ARMS, or Adjustable Rate Mortgages, which was a sure guarantee of a failure.  Greenspan said in 2003 that “The notion of a bubble bursting and a whole price level coming down, seems to me as far as a nationwide phenomenon, really quite unlikely.”  It may have seemed “unlikely” to Sir Alan, but it didn’t to me.  When it started down hill, naturally we needed more government to fix it, so the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″ was passed, which authorized the Treasury to purchase $700 billion in assets “at any time.”  The taxpayer was on the hook.  Then there is the “Troubled Assets Relief Program Act,” which allows the Treasury to seize any financial institution’s assets at whatever price it dictates.  Then, short selling was prohibited under, “The Uptick Rule,” as it destroyed the banks reputation.  This is an outrage, of course, as are all the bailout programs.  Government officials are running around like the well-known chicken with its head cut off.  We now have the “Term Auction Facility Act,” the “Term Securities Lending Facility Act,” and the “Primary Dealer Credit Facility Act.”  Sound like more government to you?

On October 9, 2007, the Dow was 14,164.53.  See what the real estate crash did to even stocks? Let’s now get back to the primary cause, and that has to be interest rates.  The interest rate acts like a floodgate, or the market’s governing body, which keeps floods from ruining everything.  If the interest rate is controlled and manipulated, to ‘boost the economy,’ we get into a bubble phase, which feeds on itself, till it has to burst. My banker, I am sure, sets interest rates on those to whom he loans, based on their credit worthiness.  Interest rates, SHOULD NOT BE SET BY ANY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE BANK.  The setting of interest rates way below what the market would have set them, by the Federal Reserve, has caused the world-wide chain reaction we now see.  As you know, in my opinion, the Federal Reserve should be instantly put out of business, and the Congress should not subsidize or dictate to anyone.  The Fed raised interest rates and flooded the market with dollars 80 years ago, and caused the great depression.  It did the same thing between 1995 and 2000, by increasing the money supply 52%, which caused the ‘dot com’ bubble to burst.  The Fed’s lowering interest rates eleven times to help us out of the dot com bubble, started the housing bubble.  The Federal Reserve is an unmitigated fraud and disaster, and there is no logical reason for its existence.

To fix the mess we are now in by endless printing of dollars and creating more and more bureaucracy, is pouring gasoline on a fire. Hey DC Gang…STOP FIXING IT.

Regards,
Don Stott

March 13, 2009

When Central Banks Tamper with Interest Rates was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Now, I’m no banking analyst, but that gap on my resumé is starting to look like a very good thing indeed.

For who’d want to be stuck with the title “Banking Stock Analyst” now the banks are all broke…? Unless you already wanted to work for government anyway.

“When the Treasury tells a bank to pay a penny a share versus its old dividend, you know who’s calling the shots,” says Jon Bruss, an old-hand banker and founder of Fortress Partners Capital Management in Wisconsin according to Bloomberg.

“It may not be de jure nationalization but I think it’s de facto nationalization.”

Ignore the italics; state-control by law is coming regardless – soon and everywhere.

Starting in the US, Larry Summers’ letter to law-makers last week guarantees nationalization by default, by making good on the myth that private investors control how publicly-quoted corporations behave. They therefore deserve an absolute loss of capital investment, if not a full public flogging, starting with zero return. And no return means zero risk capital.

Promising to be the very best head of Barack Obama’s National Economic Council he ever could be, Summers vowed to cap and cancel dividends to banking stock-holders if their bank requests two dollops or more of federal assistance. So as the last fortnight’s trade shows, those banks crying “Help!” will only see whatever risk-capital still remains flee…meaning the state will have to step in with more aid again…guaranteeing no return-on-investment to free-market cash…sparking a last panic out of the bank’s issued share capital…leaving the feds to step in and acquire the whole bank.

Private investment isn’t being crowded out, in short, so much as thrown out the window. But it’s not just this capital re-structuring which will surely end with outright state ownership. Standing surety for depositors’ cash makes it a dead-cert as well – or so we guess here at BullionVault – for all but the smallest, most boring (and therefore most innovative!) groups.

Deposit insurance is one thing, and a very fine thing the FDIC represents too – that post-Depression vow of well-meaning bureaucrats to abolish all day-to-day risk in money, creating untold risk instead in home loans, investment banking and consumer credit over the next 60 years. But stumping up hard cash in the event of a bank-run would now be quite another joy-ride entirely. Because one run would beget more runs elsewhere. And meeting the cash call all in one go would bankrupt the entire state at a stroke.

For example, household cash balances at UK banks now total almost £1 trillion ($1.35trn) – nearly twice the London government’s entire 2008 budget. Other financial firms are owed a further £880bn by the banks. Non-financial firms hold £375bn on deposit. So in the event of a banking collapse, full nationalization would seem the cheap option (short-term, at least) ahead of paying out on the FSCS (the UK equivalent of the FDIC). Meeting the statutory promise, with little or no cash cushion to help, the British state would need to find something like 1.8 times a full year’s GDP. A fire-sale of “assets” would only cause a further meltdown in stocks, housing and credit. Trying to raise the cash by selling new gilts would prove risible. (The UK’s going to have trouble raising £118bn for its operational deficit alone in 2009.) Whereas deferring the hit, by taking it onto the state’s balance-sheet for some indefinite settlement, at least keeps the sovereign solvent today.

And what does that world look like? Iceland is first to find out, that tiny island of 305,000 souls. Its banking sector – with risk “abolished” and thus merely transmuted, just like everywhere else – built up what looked like assets worth some €100 billion by 2007 (around $130bn, both at then and today’s exchange rates). Yet the central bank only had €2 billion in foreign currency reserves, as the Wall Street Journal noted last autumn, “meaning it was effectively unable to fill its role as lender of last resort” when foreign lenders – the true deus ex machina for any national economy – baulked at fresh loans.

Come the crunch, Iceland’s banks found themselves without a back-stop. The safety-net of government aid simply didn’t exist…the holes between the strings were too big…and in a nation of just 305,000 people, the problem all governments face became plain to see. Because the Treasury, state, government, sovereign – whatever you want to call that leviathan supposed to exist outside of the day-to-day flux, secure and securing against all possible outcomes – is only ever identical with the population. National resources can never be greater than the nation itself.

Or as Abe Lincoln almost said, “Government of the people, for the people and by the people just keeps coming back to…umm…the people!”

Defending bank savers against bank default means using bank savings as their own guarantee. Because where else will the money come from? Now the risk of default stands so plainly in front of the entire industrialized world, it sure won’t come from that rare beast known as banking-stock shareholders. Those few stock-holders still in are being chased away.

Fancy a loan, comrade?

Regards,
Adrian Ash
BullionVault

January 27, 2009

Broke: No Choice But Nationalization was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder