What is Business cycle and are we in mid-cycle or late cycle

John Greenwood chief economist for Invesco’s view is that, broadly, we are at mid-cycle, not late cycle. He argues in an interview with macrovoices, I know the cycle has been going on for ten years almost. In fact, in June will be the 10th anniversary of the trough of the last business cycle. So we’ve been expanding for 10 years. And in July this current business cycle expansion will become the longest in recorded US financial history. But, nevertheless, I believe that it has several years to run. And, basically, I think there are three reasons for that.

First, money growth has been low and stable.

Second, private sector leverage in the US remains low, despite some concerns about the nonfinancial corporate sector.

And, thirdly, inflation is not a threat, nor do we face a major financial accident. Those are the two main causes why previous business cycles have come to a premature end.

In my view, if we take a historical analogy, we’re at something like 1995 in the cycle that went from 1991 to 2001, which was the previous longest expansion cycle. So I think we have several years to go because the central bank, the Fed, doesn’t have to take any drastic action at this point. And I don’t believe that there are serious problems in the private sector that will cause a premature end to the expansion.

The chartbook below

https://www.macrovoices.com/guest-content/list-guest-publications/2782-johngreenwood-chartbook/file

The lubricant is not working anymore

Mehul Daya writes and I concur….
it’s simple: it’s all about Dollar-Liquidity. Slowdown in global trade is putting pressure on creation and velocity of Dollars via value-chains/Dollar-leverage since the Dollar is the lubricant of the global financial system.

See charts below in thread. Long USD

Chart 1 – this is how the dollar gets transmitted into the world

Chart 2 – global trade vs USD vs Triffin dilemma

BIS writes in ” The geography of dollar funding of non US banks”

  • US dollar liabilities of non-US banks grew after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At end-June 2018, they stood at $12.8 trillion ($14.0 trillion including net off-balance sheet positions) – as large as at the peak of the GFC.
  • Banks raise relatively fewer dollar liabilities in their affiliates in the US since the GFC. This is due to a rise in the share of dollar liabilities booked in the country where banks are headquartered.
  • European banks, which traditionally have had a large US footprint, have shrunk their dollar business and the role of their US affiliates since the GFC. At the same time, non-European banks expanded their dollar borrowing quite rapidly, but in recent years have also raised relatively fewer dollars in the US.
  • A large share of US dollar liabilities of non-US banks are cross-border (51% at end-June 2018), implying that the location where US dollar funding is raised is different from the location of the funding provider.
  • The global share of US dollar funding provided by US residents is significantly higher than that raised at foreign banks’ US branches and subsidiaries, though these shares vary across banking systems.

The global trade is slowing down and cross border trade is the largest supplier of USD into the global economy and financial system and as BIS summaries….How might this funding configuration behave in times of market stress? Non-US creditors may be pressured to withdraw funding as they might face a dollar funding squeeze themselves. This in turn is akin to margin call on all assets which were beneficiary of dollar based monetary system.

Macro Economic Dashboard- India

Key highlights of the fortnight:

  • The oversupply of bonds and liquidity tightness is keeping the 10 year G-sec curve range bound. With headline inflation still below 3%, moderating core inflation, slowing industrial growth and GDP growth likely to be below 6.5% in 4QFY19, we expect the rate easing cycle to continue.
  •  IIP growth remained sluggish in March 2019, declining 0.1% YoY, after a meagre increase of 0.1% in the previous month. The soft growth was mainly due to decline in manufacturing growth led by auto and auto component segment
  • The slowdown in consumption space is led by auto sector which has now percolated down to staples. This is a worrying development
  • Trade deficit widened to USD 15.3 billion on account of weak external demand. Export growth slid to 0.6% YoY from 11.0% YoY in March, as the base effect turned unfavourable. Weakness was mainly driven by non-oil exports, as oil exports registered strong YoY growth. Gold and silver imports registered solid improvement, though non-oil non gold imports contracted for the fourth consecutive month indicating weak domestic demand.
  • CPI inflation inched up to 2.92% in April 2019. Food and beverage inflation stood at 1.38% YoY, up from 0.66% in the previous month. Core inflation stood at 4.58%, down from 5.0% earlier. On the contrary WPI slowed down marginally but sharp rise in food inflation despite high base. The food WPI increased to 5.1% YoY in April from 3.9% in March.

Market and economic perspectives: May 2019- Vangaurd

No imminent recession threat

•Inflation under control

•The U.S. economy: mid to later stages of the business cycle

•Projected U.S. stock returns over the next ten years: 4.0%–6.0% range

•Projected international stock returns over the next ten years: 7.5%–9.5% range  

Recession watch

Key takeaway: 35% chance of a recession over the next 12 months

  • The yield curve (as traditionally defined by the 3-month and 10-year U.S. Treasury) briefly inverted in late March.
  • A key distinction about this inversion compared with others is, it’s driven almost exclusively by long-term rates dropping below short-term rates.
  • We see little evidence that the inversion, in isolation, is signaling a recession in 2019/early 2020.
  • The expected easing of global growth in the next two years—driven by a fading boost from U.S. fiscal stimulus and the continued slowing of growth in China—is fraught with economic and market risks.

Traditionally when yield curve inverts before recession, short-term real rates are significantly higher

Traditionally when yield curve inverts before recession, short-term real rates are significantly higher

read full article below

https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/advisor/researchcommentary/article/IWE_InvComMktPrspctvsMay2019

Peanut allergy

Almost Daily grant writes..

The Gauls are on the rampage, The Wall Street Journal reports today. Citing data from Dealogic, The Journal notes that French corporations have allocated a post-2008 high of roughly $100 billion to foreign acquisitions in each of the last two years (equating to roughly 4% of France’s 2018 nominal GDP) with the United States a particularly attractive target. Eighteen stateside deals have been consummated by French companies already this year.

That shopping spree coincides with an increase in France’s corporate debt load, now at 143% of GDP, up from 116% in 2008 and well above the 74% seen in the U.S., per the Bank for International Settlements. The rise in corporate debt comes as the European Central Bank marks the fifth anniversary of its foray into negative interest rates, along with the recently-paused corporate bond buying program which was in place since 2016 and held some €178 billion in assets as of April 30. 

A spokesperson for drug maker Sanofi S.A., which bought Waltham, Mass.-based Bioverativ, Inc. for $11.6 billion in March 2018, got to the crux of the matter, explaining to The Journal: “Obviously, cost of funding is one of the key elements to take into account for debt-funded deals.”

While the ECB’s aggressive monetary policy has helped spur corporate consolidation, underlying economic activity remains turgid. Thus, euro-area core CPI rose to 1.3% year-over-year in April, the highest reading since April 2017 but still far below the near-2% threshold favored by the central bankers (core CPI growth has averaged 1% since the ECB pushed the deposit rate below zero).  Meanwhile, the European Commission now forecasts 1.2% real GDP growth this year in the eurozone, down from a 1.9% guesstimate for 2019 at the end of last year. 

But hope springs eternal. Over the weekend, ECB governing council member Klaas Knot said in an interview with Corriere della Sera that “if the economy continues to rebound. . . then I think we are on course” to reach that 2% inflation bogey. Knot attributed weak European growth to globalization, stating: “the only thing that we can do is to keep the pressure up, make sure the economy continues to perform at high levels of capacity utilization and the economy continues to print GDP numbers in excess of potential growth.”

Taking no chances, the mandarins are prepared to go back to the well. In an April press conference, soon-to-be-outgoing President Mario Draghi said that the ECB is prepared to “adjust all its instruments” if data aren’t to their liking. More specifically, the Financial Times surmises that “additional measures [designed] to keep the cost of credit cheaper for longer” will be in store if growth and inflation continue to disappoint.   Then, too, investors see no policy normalization any time soon. Interest rate futures currently predict 29% odds of a rate cut by year end and virtually no chance of a hike. One month ago, the odds of a rate cut, and rate hike were both between 7% and 8%. Meanwhile, the March 2020 three-month Euribor futures contract has risen to 100.35, suggesting a deposit rate of negative 35 basis points 10 months from now. That compares to 99.88 last spring, when investors were expecting a return to positive rates and the April 6, 2018 edition of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer suggested that call options on this instrument would be a good way to profit from the ongoing financial repression in the eurozone.

March 2020 three-month Euribor futures, one-year chart. Source: The Bloomberg

With positive nominal interest rates not forthcoming any time soon, Europe’s financial institutions continue to falter. The Stoxx 600 Banks Index is now down 25% year-to-date, badly lagging the 5% decline in the broad Stoxx 600 Index. Bank valuations have descended into consignment-type depths, with that Stoxx gauge now trading at 0.58 times book value, less than half of the 1.23 times book value fetched by the KBW Banks Index in the U.S.  

The travails of Deutsche Bank, A.G., which has seen shares plummet by 93% since 2007 and carries a €43.5 trillion ($48.8 trillion) derivatives book equal to nearly three times 2018 Eurozone GDP, are front and center. But other institutions are also attracting unwanted attention. Last week, BlackRock, Inc. backed out of a deal to rescue Banca Carige S.p.A. (founded in 1483), which the ECB had placed the Italian lender in administration in January. In response, Italian deputy prime minster Matteo Salvini told reporters: “It’s an important bank. Obviously, we won’t let things collapse.” Don’t blame the ECB, according to governing council member Benoit Coeuré. Speaking in French parliament last Wednesday, Coeuré estimated that negative interest rates are costing eurozone banks €8 billion in annual lost income, which he termed “really peanuts.” Instead of positive nominal rates, Coeuré offered a familiar solution for the banks’ woes: Industry consolidation

Are gold equities finally turning a corner?

Incrementum advisory board call

During the call they talked about:

  • What positive changes are gold mining companies finally making?
  • How is ESG and technology changing the mining industry?
  • Are we finally close to a recession?
  • One economic measure is at a 12-year low – why could that suddenly matter a lot?
  • What ticking timebomb could set off the markets?

Read the PDF of the Advisory Board Transcript here.

Interesting articles from IMF blog

by Apra Sharma

Tackling Income Inequality Requires New Policies

The hollowing out of the middle class, rising social and political tension, lack of education, globalization, and rapid technological change are just a few of the many drivers of growing income inequality.

“Inclusive growth is one of the critical challenges of our time,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said at a recent event on income inequality at the IMF Spring Meetings.

“The bitter-sweet reality is that despite economic growth there are still far too many people who are left out,” Lagarde added.

“If you look at advanced economies there’s certainly a trend towards an increase in inequality between 1990 and now,” she said. “But then when you look at emerging and developing economies, it’s more mixed.”

Though global income inequality has dramatically decreased, lifting millions out of poverty over the last several decades, inequality has risen dramatically within countries. For instance, the top one percent owns about half of the world’s wealth.

House Prices Are Up: Should We Be Happy?

IMF research shows that there is a tight link between movement’s in house prices, on the one hand, and economic and financial stability, on the other.

In fact, more than half of the banking crises in recent decades were preceded by boom-bust cycles in house prices. So it’s no wonder that central bankers in Australia, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere have expressed concern about the potential for large declines.

The Chart of the Week shows average annual price changes in 32 advanced and emerging market economies and their major cities from 2013 through the second quarter of 2018. Dublin tops the gains among major cities in advanced economies, at 10 percent. Among cities in emerging market economies, Shanghai takes the prize, with an annual increase of almost 9 percent.

Fintech Can Cut Costs of Remittances to Latin America

For Latin Americans living abroad, sometimes sending money back home can be a complicated and costly ordeal. Most people rely on traditional banking methods and money transfer operators to send their remittances. But using these financial services for cross-border payments is costly—about a 6 percent charge on the total amount—and these fees are typically paid by the sender. This means less money left over for the family or friends receiving the money.

A more cost-effective approach for Latin American countries relies on using fintech, like mobile banking, to send money across borders, according to a recent IMF staff Working Paper.

Our chart of the week shows Latin America’s share of remittances transmitted with mobile money along with its overall share of remittances on a global scale. As the chart shows, Latin America’s use of mobile money both to send and receive remittances is relatively low—despite the region’s high share in total world remittances, which was about $80.5 billion in 2017.  This stands in contrast to Sub-Saharan Africa, which is more advanced in using mobile money for remittances. Globally, Latin America’s share of remittances is larger than Sub-Saharan Africa’s share. But, as the chart shows, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for the bulk of global mobile money remittance transactions, followed by East Asia and the Pacific.

According to the paper, mobile operators and mobile money can transmit remittances at a relatively low-cost, about 3 percent, compared to the cost of transfers using more traditional financial service providers, which is about 6 percent. Global Fintech companies are starting to partner with local mobile network operators, money transfer operators, and banks in the region to provide financial services. Across the region policymakers are already taking measures to improve the efficiency of payment systems. In addition, a supportive regulatory environment will be crucial to spur the development of Fintech solutions for remittance transfers in Latin America.

https://blogs.imf.org/2019/05/07/fintech-can-cut-costs-of-remittances-to-latin-america/

One more successful PSU taken to cleaners by Govt

The print writes…..
Yet another instance of a successful public sector company coming to the aid of the Indian government by helping its finances – which faced a massive shortfall in tax revenues at the fag end of fiscal 2018-19 – has come to light. The state-run firm, Container Corporation of India, has made an advance freight payment of Rs 3,000 crore to Indian Railways in 2018-19 by taking a working capital loan and liquidating its investments.

Read Full post below

Weekly Commentary: True Start to U.S. vs. China Trade War

Doug Noland writes..

Let’s begin with the markets. Ten-year Treasury yields dropped eight bps this week to 2.39%, nearing the March 27th low (2.37%). Two-year yields fell seven bps to 2.20%, a 13-month low. German bund yields declined six bps to negative 0.10%, the low closing yield going back to September 2016. German two-year yields dipped another three bps to negative 0.65%. Swiss 10-year yields declined four bps to negative 0.40%, and Japanese 10-year yields slipped a basis point to negative 0.06%. Spanish 10-year yields at 0.88% and Portuguese yields at 1.05% make no sense whatsoever unless huge new ECB QE programs are in the offing. The market now prices a 75% probability of a Fed rate cut by December, up from the previous week’s 59%.

China’s renminbi dropped 1.38% versus the dollar this week to 6.9179, the low since November 30th (offshore renminbi at all-time lows). It’s worth noting that the renminbi is now only 1.2% from breaching the key psychological 7.00 level versus the dollar. Currencies were under pressure throughout Asia. The South Korean won declined 1.5%, the Singapore dollar 1.1%, the Taiwanese dollar 1.0%, the Philippine peso 1.0% and the Indonesian rupiah 0.9%. Weakness spread into EM more generally. The Brazilian real fell 3.5%, the South African ran 1.8%, the Hungarian forint 1.5%, the Chilean peso 1.5%, and the Colombian peso 1.0%.

For the most part, EM bond market calm endured. Problem child Lebanon saw local bond yields surged 24 bps to an almost five-month high 10.65%, with yields up 87 bps so far this month. More concerning, Brazil’s local (real) yields surged 31 bps to 9.09%, the highest level since March.

After somewhat stabilizing (courtesy of “national team” buying), Chinese equities this week resumed their descent. The Shanghai Composite dropped 1.9%, with the CSI Financials index down 2.7% and the ChiNext Index sinking 3.6%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined 1.3%, led lower by a 2.1% drop in the Hang Seng China Financials index. Stocks were down 2.5% in South Korea, 6.2% in Indonesia, 3.1% in Taiwan, 2.5% in Thailand and 1.3% in the Philippines. Brazil’s Ibovespa index sank 4.5%.

Though major U.S. equities indices ended the week down less than 1%, there’s a story to tell. Monday trading saw the S&P500 sink 2.4% (DJIA down 617 pts). The President began the morning with a tweet: “China should not retaliate – will only get worse! I say openly to President Xi & all of my many friends in China that China will be hurt very badly if you don’t make a deal because companies will be forced to leave China for other countries.” Less than two hours later, Beijing announced retaliatory tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods.

Markets rallied on Tuesday, nerves calmed by the President’s comment that the trade war with China was a mere “little squabble;” “We have a good dialogue going. It will always continue.” “When the time is right we will make a deal with China. It will all happen, and much faster than people think!” A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China and the U.S. had agreed to continue “pursuing relevant discussions.” Treasury Secretary Mnuchin suggested he was planning for a trip to China to resume negotiations.

May 15 – Associated Press (Yanan Wang and Sam McNeil): “What do tilapia, Jane Austen and Chinese revolutionary poster art have in common? All have been used to rally public support around China’s position in its trade dispute with the U.S., as the ruling Communist Party takes a more aggressive approach — projecting stability and stirring up nationalistic sentiment in the process. ‘If you want to negotiate, the door is open,’ anchor Kang Hui said Monday on state broadcaster CCTV. ‘If you want a trade war,’ however, he added, ‘we’ll fight you until the end.’ ‘After 5,000 years of wind and rain, what hasn’t the Chinese nation weathered?’ Kang said. The toughly-worded monologue on the banner evening news program followed days of muted official responses to President Donald Trump’s decision to hike tariffs…”

May 14 – Bloomberg: “Chinese President Xi Jinping denounced as ‘foolish’ foreign efforts to reshape other nations as he pushes back against U.S. trade demands. ‘To think that one’s own race and civilization are superior to others, and to insist on transforming or even replacing other civilizations, is foolish in understanding and disastrous in practice,’ Xi said… at the opening ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations in Beijing… ‘The Chinese people’s beliefs are united and their determination as strong as a rock to safeguard national unity and territorial integrity, and defend national interests and dignity,’ Xi said Tuesday when meeting with visiting Greek President Prokopis Pavlopoulos.”

By Wednesday morning, it was becoming increasingly clear that the “little squabble” was more than a little fib. China’s vice-premier Liu He had stated that China (negotiators and the Chinese people) would never “flinch” in the face of tariffs. After showing restraint over recent weeks, the Chinese media was unleashed. State media declared that China would “never surrender” to external pressure. And from the communist party’s People’s Daily: “At no time will China forfeit the country’s respect, and no one should expect China to swallow bitter fruit that harms its core interests.” CCTV’s “If you want a trade war, we’ll fight you until the end” video (from above) was quickly viewed more than 3.3 billion times.

U.S equities markets opened poorly Wednesday morning, quickly giving back much of Tuesday’s recovery. If Monday’s lows were to have been taken out, market technicals could have quickly turned problematic. Especially after the previous week’s instability, there were large quantities of put options outstanding in the marketplace. Had the markets weakened going into Friday’s expiration, there was a distinct possibility of intense self-reinforcing derivatives-related selling.

About 40 minutes after Wednesday’s open, Bloomberg reported that President Trump was preparing to offer the EU and Japan a six-month window to “limit or restrict” auto exports to the U.S. before imposing new tariffs. The S&P500 jumped as much as 1.4%, a rally that carried into Thursday’s session.

The auto tariff news came at a critical market juncture. Whether it was or wasn’t a coincidence hardly matters. At this point, markets have become quite enamored with the notion of Quadruple Puts – the Fed, Trump, Xi/Beijing and corporate buybacks. When historians look back at this period, they will surely be baffled by the markets’ capacity for disregarding major risks and negative developments. We’re at the stage of a historic – and especially protracted -cycle where it has repeatedly paid to ignore risk. Over time, the successful risk ignorers and dip buyers have ascended to the top. Risk-takers systematically rewarded; the cautious banished. And, once again, those that had recently purchased put options to hedge market risk were left unsatisfied.

The official announcement of the six-month delay in auto tariffs came Friday, along with news that the President was lifting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports. The FT headline: “Trump Eases Trade Conflicts with US Allies.” Rallying markets were receptive to seemingly positive news – that is until a Friday afternoon report from CNBC (Kayla Tausche and Jacob Pramuk): “Negotiations between the U.S. and China appear to have stalled as both sides dig in after disagreements earlier this month. Scheduling for the next round of negotiations is ‘in flux’ because it is unclear what the two sides would negotiate…” One can assume the administration is now working to generate some positive news flow as it hunkers down for a tough fight with the Chinese.

The U.S./Chinese relationship was never going to end well. The lone superpower versus the rising superpower. Vastly different systems, cultures and values. And it would be such a different world these days if not for a decade (or three) of unprecedented global monetary stimulus – cheap (i.e. nearly free) finance that allowed the U.S. to run endless huge Current Account Deficits coupled with easy finance that bestowed upon the Chinese (the curse of) unlimited monetary resources for the most outrageous Credit and investment booms in history. I always expected markets would at some point put a kibosh to this perilous dynamic. It was instead the embittered U.S. electorate and the architect of “Make America Great Again.”

It sure appears as if the Rubicon has been crossed. Beijing has called out the dogs (i.e. state-controlled media) – and public anti-U.S. sentiments have been inflamed. I’ll assume they’re now executing a contingency plan some time in the making: Trump is the unreasonable and disrespectful bully. China will never again be disrespected and pushed around. President Xi – general secretary of the Communist Party, President of the People’s Republic of China, chairman of the Central Military Commission, China’s ‘Paramount Leader’ and revered ‘Core Leader’ – is precisely the great commander to confront the U.S. hegemon determined to repress China’s strength, advancement and rightful standing in the world.

It’s become difficult to envisage Trump and Xi exchanging pleasantries and doing beaming photo ops next month at the G-20 summit (June 28-29) in Osaka, Japan. President Trump has often touted his close personal relationship with China’s Xi, and the U.S. side seems to believe that a private meeting between the congenial leaders can get talks back on track (worked in Argentina!). Let’s ignore U.S. freedom of navigation voyages through the South China Sea; the administration cozying up with Taiwan; Secretary Pompeo meeting this Thursday with a pro-democracy leader in Hong Kong, etc. Let’s disregard the trail of condescending tweets. And Huawei.

May 16 – Bloomberg: “The Trump administration is pulling out the big guns in its push to slow China’s rise, with potentially devastating consequences for the rest of the world. The White House on Wednesday initiated a two-pronged assault on China: barring companies deemed a national security threat from selling to the U.S., and threatening to blacklist Huawei Technologies Co. from buying essential components. If it follows through, the move could cripple China’s largest technology company, depress the business of American chip giants from Qualcomm Inc. to Micron Technology Inc., and potentially disrupt the rollout of critical 5G wireless networks around the world.”

From CNBC: “Reacting to U.S actions on Huawei, China’s Commerce Ministry said in a statement, ‘We firmly oppose the act of any country to impose unilateral sanctions on Chinese entities based on its domestic laws, and to abuse export control measures while making ‘national security’ a catch-all phrase. We urge the US to stop its wrong practices.’”

My view is that China is adamantly opposed to the U.S.’s use of “unilateral sanctions.” The administration’s insistence on a sanction enforcement regime as integral to the trade deal was a red line the Chinese refused to cross. The U.S. doubled-down with sanctions on Huawei – and until proven otherwise I’ll assume both China’s and the U.S.’s positions have further hardened.

This is a critical juncture for China’s faltering Bubble. Fragilities are acute. The assumption is that China will now move aggressively with additional fiscal and monetary stimulus. Conversely, it’s not an inopportune time for Beijing to take some pain. They have a scapegoat – a villainous foreigner determined to contain China’s rising power. For Beijing, the greatest risk is that its population loses trust in the phenomenal communist party meritocracy.

As noted above, the Chinese renminbi dropped 1.4% this week versus the dollar – and is now just a little over 1% away from the key psychological 7.00 level. “China’s Central Bank Won’t Let Yuan Weaken Past 7 to the Dollar (Reuters’ Zheng Li and Kevin Yao): ’At present, rest assured they will certainly not let it break 7,’ a source told Reuters. A defense of the 7 level could help boost confidence in the currency and soothe investor fears about a sharp depreciation in the yuan… ‘Breaking 7 is beneficial to China because it can reduce some of the effects of tariff increases, but the impact on our renminbi confidence is negative and funds will flow out,’ the source said.”

“At present, rest assured…” Excluding its massive surplus with the U.S., China runs a significant trade deficit with the rest of the world. There’s a scenario where President Trump places hefty tariffs on all Chinese imports into the U.S., levies that over time would be expected to significantly reduce demand for Chinese goods. At the same time, a weakening renminbi would see China expend more for much of its imports. Keep in mind, as well, that Beijing’s current stimulus measures are further fueling its apartment Bubble and resulting consumption boom. It’s possible that China’s trade position is poised to radically deteriorate.

Let’s assume the PBOC does move to defend the 7.0 level (renminbi vs. $). Markets will instinctively test this support – while closely monitoring for indications of the scope of reserves (and forward contracts) expended in the process. And China (and the world) better hope reserves prove more resilient than back in 2015, when they proceeded to collapse by $580 billion over a twelve-month period. If China’s reserves begin to rapidly deplete, expect stringent capital control and other measures to stem outflows. And while everyone believes China will resort to fiscal and monetary stimulus until the cows come home, EM Crisis Dynamics invariably force authorities to tighten conditions to bolster currency and financial system stability.

Friday’s report on University of Michigan Consumer Confidence had consumer sentiment at a 15-year high. Consumer Expectations surged almost nine points to 96 (up from January’s 79.9), to the highest reading since January 2004 – and the second strongest reading going back to November 2000. With stock prices recently (May 1st) hitting record highs and the unemployment rate at 50-year lows, consumer optimism is not unreasonable.

Increasingly, it appears as if the respite from Q4 global market instability has about run its course. As an economy – from governments to corporations to households – I can’t imagine a more poorly prepared system for the gathering storm. I know: fundamentals are “sound” and the banking system is “well capitalized.” Besides, there’s the Quadruple Puts – a deeply entrenched market misperception that really concerns me. Complacency is pervasive – epically so. Ignore fundamental developments, while placing faith in the power of politicians and central bankers (and corporations forever enjoying access to cheap finance to fund buybacks). Such a backdrop creates extraordinary risk for an abrupt change in perceptions and resulting crisis of confidence – in policymakers and the markets.

We started with the markets and will end with the markets. At this point, I don’t see great contradictions between the markets: Safe haven bonds and the risk markets are not actually telling wildly different stories. Seeing low market yields, loose financial conditions, seemingly great underlying U.S. economic fundamentals and Quadruple Puts, highly speculative (trend-following and performance-chasing) markets have been behaving about as one would expect near the end of a historic cycle: an intense, overarching short-term focus on speculative market gains. The safe havens, much less concerned with timing, see speculative Bubbles primed for bursting. Treasuries, bunds, JGBs, Swiss bonds, etc. see an acutely fragile global market structure.

May 14 – Bloomberg (Steve Matthews): “Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Esther George said she’s opposed to cutting interest rates in order to raise inflation to the central bank’s 2% target, warning that could lead to asset-price bubbles and ultimately an economic downturn. ‘Lower interest rates might fuel asset price bubbles, create financial imbalances, and ultimately a recession,’ George… said… ‘In current circumstances, with an unemployment rate well below its projected longer-run level, I see little reason to be concerned about inflation running a bit below its longer-run objective.’”

Markets are not pricing in a 75% probability for a rate cut by December because of current Fed thinking. Chairman Powell is joined by sound thinkers including Esther George that recognize the risks associated with even looser monetary conditions. Markets are instead discerning the high probability of a market dislocation that would so significantly tighten financial conditions that the Fed and global central bankers will have no option other than cutting rates and resorting to more QE.

The breakdown in China/U.S. trade talks provides the initial catalyst. The 3.3% one-month decline in the renminbi (offshore renminbi down 3.9%) is indicative of acute vulnerability in the Chinese currency. And if PBOC support fails to stabilize the market, a crisis of confidence and run on Chinese assets cannot be ruled out. I don’t think one can overstate the financial, economic and geopolitical ramifications of China succumbing to Crisis Dynamics. The world becomes a much more uncertain place. Deleveraging in China would surely equate to global de-risking/deleveraging and highly destabilized global financial flows.

And for the crowd that these days harbors delusions of U.S. markets and economic activity largely immune to global issues, I pose the question: How do U.S. markets perform in the event of illiquidity and a “seizing up” of global markets? As I’ve posited before, the U.S. economy is extremely vulnerable to a dramatic market-induced tightening of financial conditions. What would markets look like if the marketplace turns against negative cash-flow enterprises? How would the U.S. economy function in the event of if debt market illiquidity?

The Powell U-turn granted markets four months of fun and games – and only greater systemic vulnerability. Now comes the downside, with a Fed that just might prove somewhat slower to come to the markets’ rescue than everyone presumes. This week marked the True Start to the U.S. vs. China Trade War. The degree of cluelessness is shocking.

read full post


http://creditbubblebulletin.blogspot.com/

Dr Lacy hunt:This is one of the most important charts in economics

Lacy said he has never shown the next chart before. Adding, there are certain things in economics that “hold true.” This is one of the most important charts in economics:

  • The green line shows the national savings rate. It is currently at 3%. It is historically 6%. We are running half of normal. The shaded area shows the private sector, which is running at 9%. That’s pretty good. The red line shows the government sector and it is running at -6% and dragging down national savings. That is where the problem lies.
  • But it is not going to stay there – the government deficit is moving even lower into negative territory.
  • The government deficit will continue to grow. Tax cuts and the bipartisan agreed-upon increase in spending do not lead to deficit reduction.
  • Bottom line: What it says is there is an insufficiency of savings to absorb ever-larger budget deficits. National savings is not staying at 3%, it is going to decline. Real investment is going to decline. It is possible the private sector will save more but that means there will be less consumption.
  • In other words, the public sector is going to constrain the private sector and the economy. (SB: Debt acts as a noose around the economy’s neck.)… and guess which sector provides the basis for better growth, the private sector or the public sector?
  • In other words, the government sector’s budget deficits are too large for the level of savings


Given the political structure of our country, it is unlikely the situation will change. Lacy added, “impossible.”

Bottom line: We simply have an insufficiency of savings and it cannot be corrected.

The Production Function – it is dependent upon technology and the three factors of production: land, labor and capital.

  • The production function states that if you overuse one of the three factors of production, output will initially rise and will then flatten out and then turn down.
  • In other words, there is a non-linear relationship between debt and economic activity.
  • The simple-minded solution that if a $3 trillion program doesn’t work you try a $6 trillion program… that doesn’t work when diminishing returns takes effect.
  • The evidence here is increasingly dire.

Latest Evidence of Diminishing Returns:

Read Full post below