Firms are fearful of capex as uncertainity has gone up

Ajay Shah writes ….Macroeconomic phenomena always have multi-dimensional explanations. One element of this story is an upsurge of fear. From 2002 to 2012, firms were presented with an environment of risk which they understood and could manage. The range of possibilities was known, and if bad things happened, one knew what to do. From 2012 onwards, things have started happening which were not on anybody’s radar. Further, even for old style problems, the old style remedies have stopped working. Firms are now faced with a new environment of stronger uncertainty and weaker tools for dealing with roadblocks. This has made firms fearful of investing

on top of that As Tamal Bandhopadhyay writes https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-indias-bad-loan-problem-really-tamal-bandyopadhyay In the aftermath of the collapse of iconic US investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008, growth collapsed in the world, but India was almost insulated from that with the government unveiling massive economic stimulus programmes. RBI cut its policy rates to a historic low and flooded the market with liquidity and banks gave loans indiscriminately. The “boom” lasted for a few quarters but the “bust” that followed has been continuing for years. Most banks and corporates misread the situation and the result of misallocation of capital.

So you have policy uncertainity as ajay shah writes and on top of that there is too much debt and misallocation of capital with corporate sector leading to NPA build up with banking sector hindering corporate capex recovery.

 

 

 

 

 

Riskiest Bond Holders wiped out as Spain’s 6th biggest bank sold for €1

Banco Popular, Spain’s sixth biggest bank, is no more. Its assets, including a massive portfolio of small-business clients, now belong to Banco Santander, Spain’s biggest bank. The global giant now has 17 million customers in Spain, a country of just 45 million people. The price was €1. If government will not bail out banks, then eradicating all value to shareholders attaches a completely new kind of risk to shareholders. If they were investors in a manufacturing company that went bust, the assets would go into bankruptcy and there would be a realistic sale of assets. What has just taken place is that if the net asset value of the bank, its own building, property etc., were say even 20% of the share value, then the shareholder faces a 100% loss in bank stocks compared to any other share investment.

Banco Popular’s shareholders, who’d been repeatedly handing Popular fresh funds in numerous capital expansions, will be wiped out.Holders of Popular’s riskiest bonds, its AT1 bonds (AT1 is a very popular with Indian Banks also) and AT2 bonds, or CoCo bonds, also got wiped out. These bonds had already plunged in recent weeks.But the deposit holders were bailed out

Wolf Richter writes….Bail-ins of investors are the way banks should be resolved but as we’ve seen in the collapse of Popular, banks can often have existential issues simmering away in the background for months, if not years, but once they’re thrust into the foreground, it can take just days for the confidence of depositors and investors to completely vanish.

This marks the first time under the EU’s Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, passed in January 2016, that shareholders and subordinate bondholders of a European bank have not been bailed out by taxpayers, but were “bailed in.”

And it was the first time that a banking failure was allowed to occur in Spain  whose resolution didn’t involve taxpayer intervention .The fact that financial markets received the bail-in of Popluar’s investors calmly means that investors Bail in is the way to go.

 

.

 

Escapism is an ever-rising trend for years to come

Victor Shvets writes …. In the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, Imperial Rome experienced an entertainment and arms race of monumental proportions. Relatively sedate shows of the republican era gave way to evermore extravagant gladiator games, public executions, and chariot races (remember the Gladiotor movie). Although Rome had traditional theatres, all the action was in the games and races. As the Emperors granted more public holidays and the public became addicted to bloody entertainment, new and evermore cruel games had to be devised. Although modern sensitivities would no longer tolerate such bloody spectacles, we have migrated some of the same emotions to an artificial reality and games (zombie invasions, dead space, call of duty) while at the same time, public is becoming so inured to news violence, that even terrorist attacks no longer seem to be able to survive for much more than one or two news cycles. According to BLS survey of the US Consumers, in 2015, ~65% of leisure time was spent on watching TV, games or socially using PCs . According to Nielsen on a broader definition of media (including tablets, smartphones, social sites), consumers are now spending more than 10 hours per day. No matter how one cuts it, alternative reality and what we call opium of the people has emerged as an equivalent of Roman games . Only dystopian portfolios can consistently perform in dystopian world.

Raoul Pal… India is the biggest investment opportunity today

Raoul Pal explains in this interview…..India  has taken a lot of the friction out. There will always be corruption, but
they’ve taken a ton of the friction out of the economy. All of the people taking that kind of tax from you, that frees up spending, income, velocity of money. It gets things going around. It gives the government cash to build more infrastructure to get things moving around faster. To get the trucks on the road. Suddenly, you see a light for India that wasn’t there

 

Don’t bank on Monetary support if you do farm loan waivers

Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) decided to: keep the policy repo rate under the liquidity adjustment facility (LAF) unchanged at 6.25 per cent.Consequently, the reverse repo rate under the LAF remains at 6.0 per cent, and the marginal standing facility (MSF) rate and the Bank Rate at 6.50 per cent.The decision of the MPC is consistent with a neutral stance of monetary policy in consonance with the objective of achieving the medium-term target for consumer price index (CPI) inflation of 4 per cent within a band of +/- 2 per cent, while supporting growth.

Five members were in favour of the monetary policy decision (this is a hawkish MPC) willing to overlook near term fall in inflation . If the configurations evident in April are sustained, then absent policy interventions, RBI believes headline inflation is projected in the range of 2.0-3.5 per cent in the first half of the year and 3.5-4.5 per cent in the second half. (We are talking about 200 basis points of real policy rates).

The following is the main reason they are not changing the bias of monetary policy

The risk of fiscal slippages, which, by and large, can entail inflationary spillovers, has risen with the announcements of large farm loan waivers. At the current juncture, global political and financial risks materialising into imported inflation and the disbursement of allowances under the 7th central pay commission’s award are upside risks. The date of implementation of the latter is still not announced and as such, it is not factored into the baseline projections.

The current state of the economy underscores the need to revive private investment, restore banking sector health and remove infrastructural bottlenecks. Monetary policy can play a more effective role only when these factors are in place. Premature action at this stage risks disruptive policy reversals later and the loss of credibility. Accordingly, the MPC decided to keep the policy rate unchanged with a neutral stance and remain watchful of incoming data.

My view

RBI is clearly unhappy with loan waivers which will not be restricted to maharashtra or UP ,but other states will also be under pressure to announce waivers in run up to 2019 lok sabha election. Farm loan waiver is a kind of QE in itself hence absence of any additional monetary policy support will not hurt equity markets although stretched valuations remain a concern .Bond yields are more influenced by rate action and we will not have any more rate cuts in this cycle ,hence Govt bond yields should be  bottoming out in next few days .

 

 

Getting Rich vs Staying rich

Abraham Germansky was a multimillionaire real estate developer in 1920s. He also loved stocks, betting heavily as the market boomed. As the crash of 1929 unfolded, he was wiped out.

And that was basically the end of Abraham Germansky.

Germansky disappeared on October 24th, 1929. The New York Times posted a short story near the back of its October 26th edition, with Germansky’s lawyer, Bernard Sandler, asking for information on his whereabouts. It tells a powerful story in just a few words:

Later that week another investor in the same city had a very different experience.

Jesse Livermore returned home on October 29th to a wife who, seeing news of the day’s record market crash, was prepared to console her husband and return to a life of frugality.

Jesse said that wasn’t necessary. He was short the market and made more money in the crash of 1929 than during the rest of his life combined.

“You mean we are not ruined?” his wife asked, according to Livermore’s biography.

He replied: “No darling, I have just had my best ever trading day – we are fabulously rich and can do whatever we like.” He made, in one day, the equivalent of $3 billion.

Polar opposite stories. *Germansky went broke, Livermore became the richest man in the world.*

But fast-forward four years and the stories end up nearly identical.

Livermore made larger and larger bets, and went on to lose everything in the stock market. Broke and ashamed, he disappeared for two days in 1933. His wife set out to find him. “Jesse L. Livermore, the stock market operator, of 1100 Park Avenue missing and has not been seen since 3pm yesterday,” the New York Times wrote in 1933. He returned, but his path was set. Livermore eventually took his own life.

*The timing was different, but Germansky and Livermore shared the realization that getting rich is one thing. Staying rich is quite another.*

Everything in the economy is cyclical. Nothing great or terrible is likely to stay that way for long, because the same forces that cause things to be great or terrible also plant the seeds to push them the other way.

Bull markets make stocks expensive, expensive stocks leave little room for error, and little room for error increases the odds of bull markets ending. Same thing in the other direction. Recessions cause pessimism. Pessimism causes underproduction, underproduction leads to scarcity, scarcity leads to a new boom.

*People and companies, whose behaviors are changed by their own success, are vulnerable to the same cycles.*

I’ve noticed a pattern: *Getting rich can be the biggest impediment to staying rich.*

It goes like this. The more successful you are at something, the more convinced you become that you’re doing it right. The more convinced you are that you’re doing it right, the less open you are to change. The less open you are to change, the more likely you are to tripping in a world that changes all the time.

*There are a million ways to get rich. But there’s only one way to stay rich: Humility, often to the point of paranoia.* The irony is that few things squash humility like getting rich in the first place.

It’s why the composition of Dow Jones companies changes so much over time, and why the Forbes list of billionaires has 60% turnover per decade.

Andy Grove, Intel’s founder, put it this way: _“Business success contains the seeds of its own destruction.”_ Scrappiness and the ability to think differently turns into complacency and the desire to keep things the same. Harvard Business Review wrote about Grove’s management philosophy in 1996:

Grove believes that at least some fear is healthy — especially in organizations that have had a history of success. Fear can be a healthy antidote to the complacency that success often breeds. A touch of paranoia — a suspicion that the world is changing against you — is what Grove prescribes.

Michael Moritz, the billionaire head of Sequoia Capital, was asked by Charlie Rose why Sequoia was so successful. Moritz mentioned longevity, noting that some VC firms succeed for five or ten years, but Sequoia has prospered for four decades. Rose asked why that was:

Moritz: I think we’ve always been afraid of going out of business._

Rose: Really? So it’s fear? Only the paranoid survive?

Moritz: There’s a lot of truth to that … We assume that tomorrow won’t be like yesterday. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels. We can’t be complacent. We can’t assume that yesterday’s success translates into tomorrow’s good fortune.

Not skill, or market insight, or even hard work. Fear and humility.

Humility doesn’t mean taking fewer risks. Sequoia takes as big of risks today as it did 30 years ago. But it’s taken risks in new industries, with new approaches, and new partners, cognizant that work worked yesterday isn’t what will work tomorrow.

IBM and Xerox did this when they shifted from hardware to services.

Netflix did it when it cannibalized its DVD business to invest in streaming.

GE has reinvented itself about every 20 years for the last century, going from a lightbulb company to a dishwasher company to a bank to a wind turbine company.

Each could have looked at their past success and concluded they were doing the right thing, patting themselves on the back. But they didn’t. They were, for the most part, paranoid, eager and willing to jettison past success in an attempt to keep up with where the world was heading next.

It’s not easy to do.

For decades people used Coke, Gillette, and American Express as examples of companies whose success was so solidified – whose moats were so deep and protected that you could foresee their dominance indefinitely. But now all three are under attack. Coke’s is fighting 13 consecutive years of soda decline. Dollar Shave Club came out of nowhere to take 14 percentage points of market share away from Gillette. And as Charlie Munger, one of AmEx’s largest investors said this week: “If you think you know what the state of the payments system will be 10 years out you’re in a state of delusion.” Only the paranoid survive.

We don’t know much about Abraham Germansky – only that he went from rich, to broke, to disappeared. But we know a lot about Livermore, whose life was well documented.

Livermore was was one of the most skilled people in the world at getting rich. But few people in the early 20th century had a harder time staying rich. He made and lost at least four fortunes, never going more than eight years without flirting with bankruptcy.

After his third wipeout, Livermore recognized his mistake: Getting rich made him feel invincible, and feeling invincible led him to double-down with leverage on what worked in the recent past, which was catastrophic when the world changed and the market turned against him.

He reflected:

I sometimes think that no price is too high for a speculator to pay to learn that which will keep him from getting the swelled head. A great many smashes by brilliant men can be traced directly to the swelled head._

“It’s an expensive disease everywhere to everybody”he said.

Abraham Germansky was a multimillionaire real estate developer in 1920s. He also loved stocks, betting heavily as the market boomed. As the crash of 1929 unfolded, he was wiped out.

And that was basically the end of Abraham Germansky.

Germansky disappeared on October 24th, 1929. The New York Times posted a short story near the back of its October 26th edition, with Germansky’s lawyer, Bernard Sandler, asking for information on his whereabouts. It tells a powerful story in just a few words:

Later that week another investor in the same city had a very different experience.

Jesse Livermore returned home on October 29th to a wife who, seeing news of the day’s record market crash, was prepared to console her husband and return to a life of frugality.

Jesse said that wasn’t necessary. He was short the market and made more money in the crash of 1929 than during the rest of his life combined.

“You mean we are not ruined?” his wife asked, according to Livermore’s biography.

He replied: “No darling, I have just had my best ever trading day – we are fabulously rich and can do whatever we like.” He made, in one day, the equivalent of $3 billion.

Polar opposite stories. *Germansky went broke, Livermore became the richest man in the world.*

But fast-forward four years and the stories end up nearly identical.

Livermore made larger and larger bets, and went on to lose everything in the stock market. Broke and ashamed, he disappeared for two days in 1933. His wife set out to find him. “Jesse L. Livermore, the stock market operator, of 1100 Park Avenue missing and has not been seen since 3pm yesterday,” the New York Times wrote in 1933. He returned, but his path was set. Livermore eventually took his own life.

*The timing was different, but Germansky and Livermore shared the realization that getting rich is one thing. Staying rich is quite another.*

Everything in the economy is cyclical. Nothing great or terrible is likely to stay that way for long, because the same forces that cause things to be great or terrible also plant the seeds to push them the other way.

Bull markets make stocks expensive, expensive stocks leave little room for error, and little room for error increases the odds of bull markets ending. Same thing in the other direction. Recessions cause pessimism. Pessimism causes underproduction, underproduction leads to scarcity, scarcity leads to a new boom.

*People and companies, whose behaviors are changed by their own success, are vulnerable to the same cycles.*

I’ve noticed a pattern: *Getting rich can be the biggest impediment to staying rich.*

It goes like this. The more successful you are at something, the more convinced you become that you’re doing it right. The more convinced you are that you’re doing it right, the less open you are to change. The less open you are to change, the more likely you are to tripping in a world that changes all the time.

*There are a million ways to get rich. But there’s only one way to stay rich: Humility, often to the point of paranoia.* The irony is that few things squash humility like getting rich in the first place.

It’s why the composition of Dow Jones companies changes so much over time, and why the Forbes list of billionaires has 60% turnover per decade.

Andy Grove, Intel’s founder, put it this way: _“Business success contains the seeds of its own destruction.”_ Scrappiness and the ability to think differently turns into complacency and the desire to keep things the same. Harvard Business Review wrote about Grove’s management philosophy in 1996:

Grove believes that at least some fear is healthy — especially in organizations that have had a history of success. Fear can be a healthy antidote to the complacency that success often breeds. A touch of paranoia — a suspicion that the world is changing against you — is what Grove prescribes.

Michael Moritz, the billionaire head of Sequoia Capital, was asked by Charlie Rose why Sequoia was so successful. Moritz mentioned longevity, noting that some VC firms succeed for five or ten years, but Sequoia has prospered for four decades. Rose asked why that was:

Moritz: I think we’ve always been afraid of going out of business._

Rose: Really? So it’s fear? Only the paranoid survive?

Moritz: There’s a lot of truth to that … We assume that tomorrow won’t be like yesterday. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels. We can’t be complacent. We can’t assume that yesterday’s success translates into tomorrow’s good fortune.

Not skill, or market insight, or even hard work. Fear and humility.

Humility doesn’t mean taking fewer risks. Sequoia takes as big of risks today as it did 30 years ago. But it’s taken risks in new industries, with new approaches, and new partners, cognizant that work worked yesterday isn’t what will work tomorrow.

IBM and Xerox did this when they shifted from hardware to services.

Netflix did it when it cannibalized its DVD business to invest in streaming.

GE has reinvented itself about every 20 years for the last century, going from a lightbulb company to a dishwasher company to a bank to a wind turbine company.

Each could have looked at their past success and concluded they were doing the right thing, patting themselves on the back. But they didn’t. They were, for the most part, paranoid, eager and willing to jettison past success in an attempt to keep up with where the world was heading next.

It’s not easy to do.

For decades people used Coke, Gillette, and American Express as examples of companies whose success was so solidified – whose moats were so deep and protected  that you could foresee their dominance indefinitely. But now all three are under attack. Coke’s is fighting 13 consecutive years of soda decline. Dollar Shave Club came out of nowhere to take 14 percentage points of market share away from Gillette. And as Charlie Munger, one of AmEx’s largest investors said this week: “If you think you know what the state of the payments system will be 10 years out you’re in a state of delusion.” Only the paranoid survive.

We don’t know much about Abraham Germansky – only that he went from rich, to broke, to disappeared. But we know a lot about Livermore, whose life was well documented.

Livermore was was one of the most skilled people in the world at getting rich. But few people in the early 20th century had a harder time staying rich. He made and lost at least four fortunes, never going more than eight years without flirting with bankruptcy.

After his third wipeout, Livermore recognized his mistake: Getting rich made him feel invincible, and feeling invincible led him to double-down with leverage on what worked in the recent past, which was catastrophic when the world changed and the market turned against him.

He reflected:

I sometimes think that no price is too high for a speculator to pay to learn that which will keep him from getting the swelled head. A great many smashes by brilliant men can be traced directly to the swelled head.

“It’s an expensive disease everywhere to everybody”he said.

$400 billion dollars buys you weak dollar and emerging market rally

what will happen to growth and asset prices if govt of India spends 300000 ( roughly 2% of GDP) crore in a quarter? Well… This is the amount of liquidity as a % of GDP which US treasury  unleashed into the money markets when it let the cash balances of the US Treasury run down so the government wouldn’t breach the debt ceiling. At the same time, the Fed was trying to tighten financial conditions by hiking in December 2016 while the Treasury unintentionally floods money markets with $400 billion ( roughly 2% of US GDP) in cash in the 1st quarter of 2017.In reality, the US Government actually spent US$400bn which ended up in deposit accounts which were not simultaneously drained by sales of Treasury Bills.

So…the system was flush with an additional US$400bn of dollar reserves.

Think what this high powered money can do to asset markets and there you have ……markets after markets making a new high

US Treasury Cash Balances at Federal Reserve Banks plummet to prevent a breach of the debt ceiling. (chart below)

Now we know what created the liquidity mirage, weakened the dollar, and sent EM & precious metals rallying through the first half of the year

At some point in near future when Americans will solve their debt ceiling problem, US treasury will have to replenish this liquidity by issuing Treasury bills/notes and that would be the time we will have tightening of dollar liquidity and bid under US Dollar.

A startup plots to trim the fat in the insurance industry

Singapore-based startup, Bandboo, sells unemployment insurance. But here’s the twist: it promises to make insurance cheaper and more transparent than ever.

“The insurance industry has too much fat in it. The profits may be a bit excessive for the insurance companies, and they’re not as efficient as they can be,” he says.

Bandboo is unique in two ways. First, it’ll return unused premiums back to the insured within a year. That’s unlike traditional insurers, which keep the premiums you’ve paid and in many cases don’t return them, even if you didn’t claim the money.

Debt Deflation and Waste

Dr Jim Rickards Explains the current China problem of Too much Debt leading to Deflation arising out of too much waste i.e Unproductive investment

Waste is a blunt word referring to non-productive investment. The investment component of China’s GDP is about 45% of the total. Most major economies show about 25% to 35% for investment.

But at least half the Chinese investment is wasted. It goes to projects that will never produce an adequate return, either on an absolute basis or relative to alternative uses of the funds.

If this wasted investment is subtracted from GDP, similar to a one-time write off under general accounting principles, then 8% growth would be 6.2%, and 6% growth would be 4.7%. There are other distortions in Chinese growth figures, but wasted investment is one of the most glaring.

 

 

RBI to change policy guidance to “Accomodative”?

R jagannathan writes ……The case for a rate cut has never been stronger. So, when the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meets on 6 and 7 June, it should recommend a 50 basis points cut in the repo rate.

The last two policies saw the MPC and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) turning cautious. They have been fretting more about inflation and less about growth, with the February policy shifting the central bank’s credit stance from “accommodative” to “neutral”. The April policy maintained status quo.

Luckily for the Indian economy, the demonetisation of high-value notes in November last year created a huge cash surplus with the banking system, enabling them to cut deposit rates and also lending rates on retail loans.

My view

I believe we will see a change in policy guidance ( neutral to dovish) from RBI and although i do agree with some points made in the article https://swarajyamag.com/economy/governor-urjit-patel-must-take-a-deep-breath-and-offer-a-50-bps-rate-cut-on-7-june by R jagannathan ,  I think it is too early to call for a rate cut although this would possibly be the small window of opportunity opened just before GST kicks in and dismal US NFP (employment) data.  Banks flush with money from demonetisation have not only slashed deposit rates but lack of credit demand has led them to slash consumer loans and mortgage rates aggresively. Even market determined rates ( bonds and cp) have come off sharply since demonetisation. The only rates which have not fallen is Govt securities and SDL ( state development loans) and that is owing to excess ownership and supply of paper rather than demand.The corporate credit demand has been muted for sometime because companies are running down their inventories as there is uncertainity of GST impact of these inventories and hence that is one reason even working capital demand is weak.RBI can always give a reason that they will take a call on monetary policy after they see the impact of GST on inflation.

India needs growth momentum to sustain and in absence of corporate capex either Govt will have to expand its balancesheet and continue spending like it did in Jan-Mar quarter or monetary policy needs to make consumer borrowing (mortgage and other consumer borrowing) and value of assets more attractive by cutting rates .

( I must point out here that i am not in favor of leveraging household to generate growth without corresponding increase in employment opportunities and wage growth)

We  will come to know in this policy whether RBI is willing to take this risk and share Govt’s Burden