ring to the surge in the gold price, the quote du jour this week comes from Richard Russell, 85-year-old author of the Dow Theory Letters. He said: “America’s Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is convinced he knows the secret of avoiding hard times. The Fed can halt deflation and turn the picture into asset inflation. All it takes, thinks Bernanke, is zero interest rates and the creation of trillions of new dollars - and they will come, and they will spend. This is the path the Bernanke Fed has chosen. So far, it has not worked - they are not coming, and they are not spending. The Fed’s strategy has not even succeeded in bringing down unemployment. Bernanke’s solution - more of the same: ‘Whatever it takes, and as long as it takes.’
“Thus we have a strange and ironic situation. We have world deflation, and a Fed Chairman who believes he can manipulate the primary trend. Bernanke’s strategy is leading to a weakening dollar. The more dollars that are created, the weaker the dollar. As the dollar’s very status comes into question, wise and seasoned investors move to protect their wealth. They move to the time-honored ’safe haven’: the one unit of wealth that cannot be destroyed in that it is not a liability of any government. And, of course, I’m talking about the one unit of wealth that is never questioned - gold.
“So it’s the gold bull market that I trust and believe in. I think and I ponder - what can halt the gold bull market? The only thing that can halt the gold bull market is a complete reversal by the politicians and the Fed, and that would allow the US to sink into a state of deflation and depression. Unthinkable.”
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Great comments from Guild Investments
Guild Investment Global Market Commentary
Written: November 2, 2009
Last week, we had a short-lived rally in the U.S. dollar predicated on the unrealistic view that a weaker U.S. economy would send gold and oil down and the dollar up. Only algorithm writers who are completely ignorant about stock and commodity markets could believe that a poor U.S. economy is actually good for the U.S. dollar.
After a few days, the dollar’s rally reversed and began to decline again while gold and oil are once again rising. In our opinion, any declines in oil and gold prices over the next few months can be used as buying opportunities.
We expect oil to trade between $60 and $100 per barrel for the next two years. After that, we expect oil prices to rise much higher.
We favor gold bullion and gold shares, oil stocks, U.S. technology companies that are poised to serve the world market through exports, and companies in emerging countries with growth potential.
INTEREST RATES
Last week, interest rates were forced up by the market, with the yield for U.S. ten year paper rising as the Treasury tried to sell $140 billion of new bonds. Buyers are demanding higher rates, but the U.S. government is not going to raise short term rates until GDP growth increases substantially and remains good for a year or more. Although the market may continue to force up longer term interest rates, we do not expect the Federal Reserve to raise short term rates.
Indeed, the U.S. Federal Reserve wants interest rates to stay low. They realize that this is necessary to support asset values (even if they only move sideways). A U.S. asset deflation occurred in 2008 and 2009, and the government is trying desperately to reverse the trend. Although the stock market has succeeded in making a turnaround, real estate, cars, and many other asset prices remain deflated.
When it comes to keeping rates low and letting asset values rise, the U.S. Government clearly has a favorite method. They prefer to depreciate the unit of measurement: the U.S. Dollar.
Most commodities are valued in dollars, so if one weakens the dollar, prices rise in U.S. terms, but many are falling in terms of strong foreign currencies, gold, oil and other stores of values. While asset deflation continues in other currencies, asset prices have been rising in dollar terms.
CURRENCY CARRY TRADE
The currency carry trade occurs when investors borrow a given currency (let’s say the dollar) at very low interest rate and use the borrowed money to buy other currencies, stocks, and commodities. It also occurs when and investors sell dollars short and later buy them back with depreciated dollars. The carry trade is dependent on both interest rates and the value of the dollar. And it has been one of the biggest factors responsible for the stock market rally in recent weeks.
The dollar’s recent rally has some believing the carry trade is winding down. Perhaps fear of the big budget deficits and the low demand for U.S. Government bonds is causing investors to expect U.S. interest rates to rise sooner. When the fear of rising interest rates pervades the markets, this causes speculators to unwind their carry trade by buying dollars back and selling their stocks and commodities. In other words, the “carry trade” and the stock market rally are being endangered by potential higher interest rates caused by the big budget deficits.
We do not know if the market has reached its highs for 2009, but we do know that a small wave of fear is once again washing through investment markets. The big decline of 2008 and early 2009 was cathartic. The rally from this cathartic bottom has been normal, so any correction in global stocks and associated commodities will be short lived. Perhaps short-term fears of a technical market correction causes speculators to cut borrowing (on which the carry trade depends), and to sell stock positions.
U.S. DEBT
The Economist magazine echoes many of our arguments regarding U.S. debt and deficits. Last week’s Economist magazine had an important article entitled “Tomorrows Burden: Americas Debt Crisis will be Chronic Not Acute, and Long Lasting.” The article elucidates many of the points that we have repeatedly made in our commentaries over the last several years. It is well written, and I will take the liberty of paraphrasing the main points.
The author makes the point that there are three things that could lead to an acute crisis:
1.) A lender’s strike (no debt available)
2.) A crash in the dollar (possible not probable immediately)
3.) A rise in inflation (this seems remote to the Economist. It does not seem remote to us.)
The authors reason that the debt crisis will be long-lasting and chronic, but not acute. That is unless one of these three issues develops. We believe that we could experience all three of the above within a couple of years. For those who would like to read the entire article, please see this link:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14699754
THE NEXT U.S. FINANCIAL CRISIS IS ALREADY ON THE WAY.
It will be an inflationary crisis, and it will commence about 2012.
The U.S. Government has guaranteed banks and the housing market. It has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to strengthen the economy at the same time tax revenues are collapsing. Social Security and health care financing will add to the burdens. The banking crisis will probably turn into a long-term government debt crisis.
The United States has been living beyond its means, over-borrowing, and engaging in other irrational, unwise, and destructive behaviors. These behaviors have been encouraged and abetted by the Congress, former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, and both Republican and Democratic administrations. A less powerful country, perhaps one which was not providing a military shield for much of the world, would have seen their currency and debt markets subjected to immense scrutiny and widespread suspicion and may have been forced to default long ago.
History has demonstrated two likely outcomes for the situation in which the U.S. currently finds itself. The first is that bond and currency market speculators make default the inevitable outcome. The second is that they devalue their currency substantially in order to pay back their debts in a diminished currency. The day approaches when the U.S. dollar will meet the fate that so many other currencies have faced over the millennia…it will suffer a substantial decline and inflation will resurge. This will probably occur no later than the end of 2012.
DEBT MARKETS
Contrary to the beliefs of some efficient market theorists, financial markets can remain highly irrational for extended periods of time. Few things prove this better than the behavior of the U.S. debt market.
The reality is that investors should be scared of the U.S. debt market. The U.S. continues to go to the markets with bond offerings, financing huge sums of borrowing to feed its ravenous appetite for spending that far exceeds the means of the taxpayers…or the logic of markets.
The markets continue to support the dollar beyond a reasonable level. This support can be partially explained by the many relationships and financial activities the U.S. Government currently undertakes. Over the years, the U.S. military’s largess and the dollar’s status as a world reserve currency have helped sustain the value of the dollar. For example, the U.S. still incurs a large percentage of the military protection costs of Germany and Japan 64 years after the end of World War II.
The value of the dollar has also been preserved because the major debt holders; Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and Britain are large exporters to the U.S. and/or those that are allied with the U.S. militarily. Below is a chart from the U.S. Treasury Department:
ForeignHoldersofUSTBILLS-1.jpg picture by gimmarketing
LEVERAGE IN THE BANKING SYSTEM
Remember the terrible banking crisis of 2008-2009 that brought down Bear Sterns, Lehman, and Washington Mutual, and threatened others in the U.S. and Europe? You haven’t forgotten, and we haven’t forgotten, but it seems that Congress has. What’s more, they are squandering an opportunity to repair and revitalize the U.S banking system. Today, the U.S. banking system continues to be dangerously speculative and interconnected. Banks deny credit needed for small business, the major driver of employment, while engaging in unproductive speculation. And although this is clearly a serious defect in the system, Congress has failed to address it.
Even more disconcerting is that the banking lobby has Congress’ ears. Instead of listening to the proven, wise, and honest former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Congress is listening to the folks that brought us the last crisis. So when Volcker makes the reasonable suggestion that banks and speculative trading activities should be separated, and that only banks with no involvement in trading for their own account should get government guarantees and bail outs, Congress isn’t listening. Sadly, we fear that Congress’ unwillingness to face down the banking lobby guarantees that a new crisis is on the agenda for future years.
This is in sharp contrast to Holland, where the country’s largest bank is forced to sell its U.S. Internet banking operations and its insurance company in order to attain and maintain the use of government funds. In Britain, the trend toward breaking up large banks is being pushed by the top economists at the Bank of England, and in other countries there are demands that banks stop speculation for their own account. In our opinion, disallowing speculation by commercial banks is the only effective method to forestall the next system-wide financial crisis.
Written: November 2, 2009
Last week, we had a short-lived rally in the U.S. dollar predicated on the unrealistic view that a weaker U.S. economy would send gold and oil down and the dollar up. Only algorithm writers who are completely ignorant about stock and commodity markets could believe that a poor U.S. economy is actually good for the U.S. dollar.
After a few days, the dollar’s rally reversed and began to decline again while gold and oil are once again rising. In our opinion, any declines in oil and gold prices over the next few months can be used as buying opportunities.
We expect oil to trade between $60 and $100 per barrel for the next two years. After that, we expect oil prices to rise much higher.
We favor gold bullion and gold shares, oil stocks, U.S. technology companies that are poised to serve the world market through exports, and companies in emerging countries with growth potential.
INTEREST RATES
Last week, interest rates were forced up by the market, with the yield for U.S. ten year paper rising as the Treasury tried to sell $140 billion of new bonds. Buyers are demanding higher rates, but the U.S. government is not going to raise short term rates until GDP growth increases substantially and remains good for a year or more. Although the market may continue to force up longer term interest rates, we do not expect the Federal Reserve to raise short term rates.
Indeed, the U.S. Federal Reserve wants interest rates to stay low. They realize that this is necessary to support asset values (even if they only move sideways). A U.S. asset deflation occurred in 2008 and 2009, and the government is trying desperately to reverse the trend. Although the stock market has succeeded in making a turnaround, real estate, cars, and many other asset prices remain deflated.
When it comes to keeping rates low and letting asset values rise, the U.S. Government clearly has a favorite method. They prefer to depreciate the unit of measurement: the U.S. Dollar.
Most commodities are valued in dollars, so if one weakens the dollar, prices rise in U.S. terms, but many are falling in terms of strong foreign currencies, gold, oil and other stores of values. While asset deflation continues in other currencies, asset prices have been rising in dollar terms.
CURRENCY CARRY TRADE
The currency carry trade occurs when investors borrow a given currency (let’s say the dollar) at very low interest rate and use the borrowed money to buy other currencies, stocks, and commodities. It also occurs when and investors sell dollars short and later buy them back with depreciated dollars. The carry trade is dependent on both interest rates and the value of the dollar. And it has been one of the biggest factors responsible for the stock market rally in recent weeks.
The dollar’s recent rally has some believing the carry trade is winding down. Perhaps fear of the big budget deficits and the low demand for U.S. Government bonds is causing investors to expect U.S. interest rates to rise sooner. When the fear of rising interest rates pervades the markets, this causes speculators to unwind their carry trade by buying dollars back and selling their stocks and commodities. In other words, the “carry trade” and the stock market rally are being endangered by potential higher interest rates caused by the big budget deficits.
We do not know if the market has reached its highs for 2009, but we do know that a small wave of fear is once again washing through investment markets. The big decline of 2008 and early 2009 was cathartic. The rally from this cathartic bottom has been normal, so any correction in global stocks and associated commodities will be short lived. Perhaps short-term fears of a technical market correction causes speculators to cut borrowing (on which the carry trade depends), and to sell stock positions.
U.S. DEBT
The Economist magazine echoes many of our arguments regarding U.S. debt and deficits. Last week’s Economist magazine had an important article entitled “Tomorrows Burden: Americas Debt Crisis will be Chronic Not Acute, and Long Lasting.” The article elucidates many of the points that we have repeatedly made in our commentaries over the last several years. It is well written, and I will take the liberty of paraphrasing the main points.
The author makes the point that there are three things that could lead to an acute crisis:
1.) A lender’s strike (no debt available)
2.) A crash in the dollar (possible not probable immediately)
3.) A rise in inflation (this seems remote to the Economist. It does not seem remote to us.)
The authors reason that the debt crisis will be long-lasting and chronic, but not acute. That is unless one of these three issues develops. We believe that we could experience all three of the above within a couple of years. For those who would like to read the entire article, please see this link:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14699754
THE NEXT U.S. FINANCIAL CRISIS IS ALREADY ON THE WAY.
It will be an inflationary crisis, and it will commence about 2012.
The U.S. Government has guaranteed banks and the housing market. It has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to strengthen the economy at the same time tax revenues are collapsing. Social Security and health care financing will add to the burdens. The banking crisis will probably turn into a long-term government debt crisis.
The United States has been living beyond its means, over-borrowing, and engaging in other irrational, unwise, and destructive behaviors. These behaviors have been encouraged and abetted by the Congress, former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, and both Republican and Democratic administrations. A less powerful country, perhaps one which was not providing a military shield for much of the world, would have seen their currency and debt markets subjected to immense scrutiny and widespread suspicion and may have been forced to default long ago.
History has demonstrated two likely outcomes for the situation in which the U.S. currently finds itself. The first is that bond and currency market speculators make default the inevitable outcome. The second is that they devalue their currency substantially in order to pay back their debts in a diminished currency. The day approaches when the U.S. dollar will meet the fate that so many other currencies have faced over the millennia…it will suffer a substantial decline and inflation will resurge. This will probably occur no later than the end of 2012.
DEBT MARKETS
Contrary to the beliefs of some efficient market theorists, financial markets can remain highly irrational for extended periods of time. Few things prove this better than the behavior of the U.S. debt market.
The reality is that investors should be scared of the U.S. debt market. The U.S. continues to go to the markets with bond offerings, financing huge sums of borrowing to feed its ravenous appetite for spending that far exceeds the means of the taxpayers…or the logic of markets.
The markets continue to support the dollar beyond a reasonable level. This support can be partially explained by the many relationships and financial activities the U.S. Government currently undertakes. Over the years, the U.S. military’s largess and the dollar’s status as a world reserve currency have helped sustain the value of the dollar. For example, the U.S. still incurs a large percentage of the military protection costs of Germany and Japan 64 years after the end of World War II.
The value of the dollar has also been preserved because the major debt holders; Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and Britain are large exporters to the U.S. and/or those that are allied with the U.S. militarily. Below is a chart from the U.S. Treasury Department:
ForeignHoldersofUSTBILLS-1.jpg picture by gimmarketing
LEVERAGE IN THE BANKING SYSTEM
Remember the terrible banking crisis of 2008-2009 that brought down Bear Sterns, Lehman, and Washington Mutual, and threatened others in the U.S. and Europe? You haven’t forgotten, and we haven’t forgotten, but it seems that Congress has. What’s more, they are squandering an opportunity to repair and revitalize the U.S banking system. Today, the U.S. banking system continues to be dangerously speculative and interconnected. Banks deny credit needed for small business, the major driver of employment, while engaging in unproductive speculation. And although this is clearly a serious defect in the system, Congress has failed to address it.
Even more disconcerting is that the banking lobby has Congress’ ears. Instead of listening to the proven, wise, and honest former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Congress is listening to the folks that brought us the last crisis. So when Volcker makes the reasonable suggestion that banks and speculative trading activities should be separated, and that only banks with no involvement in trading for their own account should get government guarantees and bail outs, Congress isn’t listening. Sadly, we fear that Congress’ unwillingness to face down the banking lobby guarantees that a new crisis is on the agenda for future years.
This is in sharp contrast to Holland, where the country’s largest bank is forced to sell its U.S. Internet banking operations and its insurance company in order to attain and maintain the use of government funds. In Britain, the trend toward breaking up large banks is being pushed by the top economists at the Bank of England, and in other countries there are demands that banks stop speculation for their own account. In our opinion, disallowing speculation by commercial banks is the only effective method to forestall the next system-wide financial crisis.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Excellent Article on risk of ETFs
Ban swap-based ETFs, says ex-chief of Eurizon
By Chris Newlands
Published: November 1 2009 09:14 | Last updated: November 1 2009 09:14
Swap-based exchange traded funds that target retail investors should be banned, according to former Eurizon chief executive Francis Candylaftis.
Mr Candylaftis, whose departure from Italy’s Eurizon was announced last month, believes European regulators should outlaw synthetically structured ETFs that track an index. He says they do not comply with the transparency rules or expectations Ucits vehicles claim to have. Providers, he says, should instead buy the physical assets.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Milestone auction for European CDS - Oct-22
CDS probe opens new ‘can of worms’ - Jul-15
US probe just what the CDS sector do not need - Jul-14
Insight: Effective rules require sound knowledge - Jul-07
Insight: SEC gets tough on Wall St tribalism - Jun-25
Exchange plan for derivatives welcomed - Jul-12
“The growth of ETFs in Europe is based on the myth that ETFs are transparent whereas most ETFs in Europe – with the exception of Barclays’ – are swap-based, something completely unknown to investors,” says the former head of Italy’s largest asset manager.
According to Manooj Mistry, UK head of db x-trackers, more than 50 per cent of ETF assets under management are held in synthetically-replicated index products – a trend db x-trackers is unconcerned by. Most new providers, he adds, now only adopt this structure.
This, however, angers Mr Candylaftis. “I do not understand the distinction between structured products and ETFs. Most of the time ETFs are indeed structured products that should not have Ucits status,” he says.
“ETFs are okay for institutional investors who are supposedly aware of all these features and can evaluate them, but they are much less suitable for retail clients.”
Mr Candylaftis wants European regulators to either ban ETFs that use swaps or strictly enforce the 10 per cent counterparty-risk rule.
“It is a paradox that ETFs are meant to be very transparent instruments compared to traditional funds when, in fact, they are the opposite,” he says, adding that he wants retail-focused providers that replicate an index to actually buy the physical stocks instead of using the swap markets.
Mr Mistry, whose firm only promotes synthetically-replicated index products, disagrees. “All ETFs in Europe comply with Ucits III regulations, whether they are swap-based or not,” he says. “The question really should be which method – traditional or synthetic – works and performs best for investors, and we think that is swap-based products.”
Proponents of fully synthetic replication say it offers the advantage of being able to replicate pretty much any asset class exposure. Some areas, such as various domestic emerging debt markets, are difficult to access using physical replication because of tax disadvantages that can exist for overseas investors.
Swap-based tracking also removes the settlement and tracking error risk from investors and passes them on to a third party on the date a trade is made. When working with a liquid benchmark index and a well-tested settlement system like the DTCC in the US these concerns may seem minor, but in less developed markets this can offer real benefits to investors, experts say.
Axel Lomholt, head of product development for iShares Europe, which leans heavily towards traditional replication, says he understands these advantages but adds that his firm will always purchase the physical stocks when it can.
“Our first approach is to always try and buy the underlying assets,” he says. “It’s not always easy but you’d be surprised how far you can go with that route.
“Others will tell you it is too difficult or too expensive to buy the physical stocks but a lot of exposures can be replicated traditionally if you have the platform and the scale to do so – and we have.”
He adds: “Clients prefer ETFs that are backed by the physical assets. Research shows this to be true and that is why we go down that route when we can.”
Mr Lomholt, however, does not go so far as to agree with Mr Candylaftis that swap-based ETFs should be outlawed from the retail market. “They are an extremely useful tool,” he says. “We don’t overly rely on them like some houses because of the counterparty risk that exists but I don’t agree that swaps should be banned from the world of ETFs.”
Under European Ucits rules any counterparty exposure is limited to 10 per cent of a fund’s net asset value but, in practice, many ETF issuers manage this exposure to a lower maximum percentage of 0-5 per cent.
Nevertheless, fears over possible bank failures, stemming from the Lehman collapse last year, were sufficient to drive many investors away from swap-based ETFs in favour of the more traditional ETF structure in which the fund owns all or a representative sample of the securities in the index.
“This was a big topic when Lehman collapsed, and rightly so,” says Mr Mistry. “But we fully collateralise the majority of our funds and over-collateralise on all our equity, commodity and hedge fund ETFs. We do this to remove any fears investors might have regarding counterparty risk.
“Almost 50 per cent of ETFs are fully synthetic and so it’s not true to say people now don’t want these products.”
All iShares’ fixed income ETFs use traditional index replication but Mr Lomholt concedes Mr Mistry’s point: “Counterparty risk has been a worry since the Lehman collapse but the ETF market has not itself experienced a problem up until now, even though we have been through some extreme times. That’s important to remember.”
By Chris Newlands
Published: November 1 2009 09:14 | Last updated: November 1 2009 09:14
Swap-based exchange traded funds that target retail investors should be banned, according to former Eurizon chief executive Francis Candylaftis.
Mr Candylaftis, whose departure from Italy’s Eurizon was announced last month, believes European regulators should outlaw synthetically structured ETFs that track an index. He says they do not comply with the transparency rules or expectations Ucits vehicles claim to have. Providers, he says, should instead buy the physical assets.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Milestone auction for European CDS - Oct-22
CDS probe opens new ‘can of worms’ - Jul-15
US probe just what the CDS sector do not need - Jul-14
Insight: Effective rules require sound knowledge - Jul-07
Insight: SEC gets tough on Wall St tribalism - Jun-25
Exchange plan for derivatives welcomed - Jul-12
“The growth of ETFs in Europe is based on the myth that ETFs are transparent whereas most ETFs in Europe – with the exception of Barclays’ – are swap-based, something completely unknown to investors,” says the former head of Italy’s largest asset manager.
According to Manooj Mistry, UK head of db x-trackers, more than 50 per cent of ETF assets under management are held in synthetically-replicated index products – a trend db x-trackers is unconcerned by. Most new providers, he adds, now only adopt this structure.
This, however, angers Mr Candylaftis. “I do not understand the distinction between structured products and ETFs. Most of the time ETFs are indeed structured products that should not have Ucits status,” he says.
“ETFs are okay for institutional investors who are supposedly aware of all these features and can evaluate them, but they are much less suitable for retail clients.”
Mr Candylaftis wants European regulators to either ban ETFs that use swaps or strictly enforce the 10 per cent counterparty-risk rule.
“It is a paradox that ETFs are meant to be very transparent instruments compared to traditional funds when, in fact, they are the opposite,” he says, adding that he wants retail-focused providers that replicate an index to actually buy the physical stocks instead of using the swap markets.
Mr Mistry, whose firm only promotes synthetically-replicated index products, disagrees. “All ETFs in Europe comply with Ucits III regulations, whether they are swap-based or not,” he says. “The question really should be which method – traditional or synthetic – works and performs best for investors, and we think that is swap-based products.”
Proponents of fully synthetic replication say it offers the advantage of being able to replicate pretty much any asset class exposure. Some areas, such as various domestic emerging debt markets, are difficult to access using physical replication because of tax disadvantages that can exist for overseas investors.
Swap-based tracking also removes the settlement and tracking error risk from investors and passes them on to a third party on the date a trade is made. When working with a liquid benchmark index and a well-tested settlement system like the DTCC in the US these concerns may seem minor, but in less developed markets this can offer real benefits to investors, experts say.
Axel Lomholt, head of product development for iShares Europe, which leans heavily towards traditional replication, says he understands these advantages but adds that his firm will always purchase the physical stocks when it can.
“Our first approach is to always try and buy the underlying assets,” he says. “It’s not always easy but you’d be surprised how far you can go with that route.
“Others will tell you it is too difficult or too expensive to buy the physical stocks but a lot of exposures can be replicated traditionally if you have the platform and the scale to do so – and we have.”
He adds: “Clients prefer ETFs that are backed by the physical assets. Research shows this to be true and that is why we go down that route when we can.”
Mr Lomholt, however, does not go so far as to agree with Mr Candylaftis that swap-based ETFs should be outlawed from the retail market. “They are an extremely useful tool,” he says. “We don’t overly rely on them like some houses because of the counterparty risk that exists but I don’t agree that swaps should be banned from the world of ETFs.”
Under European Ucits rules any counterparty exposure is limited to 10 per cent of a fund’s net asset value but, in practice, many ETF issuers manage this exposure to a lower maximum percentage of 0-5 per cent.
Nevertheless, fears over possible bank failures, stemming from the Lehman collapse last year, were sufficient to drive many investors away from swap-based ETFs in favour of the more traditional ETF structure in which the fund owns all or a representative sample of the securities in the index.
“This was a big topic when Lehman collapsed, and rightly so,” says Mr Mistry. “But we fully collateralise the majority of our funds and over-collateralise on all our equity, commodity and hedge fund ETFs. We do this to remove any fears investors might have regarding counterparty risk.
“Almost 50 per cent of ETFs are fully synthetic and so it’s not true to say people now don’t want these products.”
All iShares’ fixed income ETFs use traditional index replication but Mr Lomholt concedes Mr Mistry’s point: “Counterparty risk has been a worry since the Lehman collapse but the ETF market has not itself experienced a problem up until now, even though we have been through some extreme times. That’s important to remember.”
The Economy is So Bad.....
The economy is so bad that Barack Obama changed his slogan to "Maybe We Can!"
The economy is so bad that Sarah Palin is only shooting moose for food, not for fun.
The economy is so bad that when Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.
The economy is so bad that instead of a coin toss at the beginning of the Super Bowl in February, they will play "Rock, Paper, Scissors."
The economy is so bad that Angelina Jolie had to adopt a highway.
The economy is so bad that my niece told me she wants to dress up as a 401(k) for Halloween so that she can turn invisible.
The economy is so bad that I ordered a burger at McDonald's (MCD) and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"
The economy is so bad that I saw four CEOs over the weekend playing miniature golf.
The economy is so bad I saw the CEO of Wal-Mart (WMT) shopping at Wal-Mart.
The economy is so bad that Bill Gates had to switch to dial up.
The economy is so bad that rapper 50 Cent had to change his name to 10 Cent.
The economy is so bad that they Pequot tribe built a reservation on the site of one of their casinos.
The economy is so bad that the Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
The economy is so bad that if the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
The economy is so bad that I bought a toaster oven and my free gift with the purchase was a bank.
The economy is so bad that the only company hiring this week is the one that sends people to scrape bankers off of Wall Street sidewalks.
The economy is so bad that I went to my bank to get a loan, and they said, "What a coincidence! That's just what we were going to ask you!"
The economy is so bad that a picture is now only worth 200 words.
The economy is so bad that Hot Wheels stock is trading higher than GM.
And the No. 1 sign how bad the economy is...
The economy is so bad that the guy who made $50 billion disappear (Madoff) is being investigated by the people who made over $1 trillion disappear (our policymakers)!
The economy is so bad that Sarah Palin is only shooting moose for food, not for fun.
The economy is so bad that when Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.
The economy is so bad that instead of a coin toss at the beginning of the Super Bowl in February, they will play "Rock, Paper, Scissors."
The economy is so bad that Angelina Jolie had to adopt a highway.
The economy is so bad that my niece told me she wants to dress up as a 401(k) for Halloween so that she can turn invisible.
The economy is so bad that I ordered a burger at McDonald's (MCD) and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"
The economy is so bad that I saw four CEOs over the weekend playing miniature golf.
The economy is so bad I saw the CEO of Wal-Mart (WMT) shopping at Wal-Mart.
The economy is so bad that Bill Gates had to switch to dial up.
The economy is so bad that rapper 50 Cent had to change his name to 10 Cent.
The economy is so bad that they Pequot tribe built a reservation on the site of one of their casinos.
The economy is so bad that the Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
The economy is so bad that if the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
The economy is so bad that I bought a toaster oven and my free gift with the purchase was a bank.
The economy is so bad that the only company hiring this week is the one that sends people to scrape bankers off of Wall Street sidewalks.
The economy is so bad that I went to my bank to get a loan, and they said, "What a coincidence! That's just what we were going to ask you!"
The economy is so bad that a picture is now only worth 200 words.
The economy is so bad that Hot Wheels stock is trading higher than GM.
And the No. 1 sign how bad the economy is...
The economy is so bad that the guy who made $50 billion disappear (Madoff) is being investigated by the people who made over $1 trillion disappear (our policymakers)!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bill Gross of Pimco
The world is turning “green” – global warming or not. Electric cars, free-range chickens, and White House vegetable gardens are the wave of the future, but the defining badge of environmentalists may be none of those and might, in fact, be colored blue, as opposed to green. Dog owners would be the first to acknowledge it. Having converted reluctantly to felines nearly ten years ago, I myself am only forced to humble myself by emptying the litter box once or twice a year when Sue is visiting the relatives. But dogs? Well, Bowser has to be walked, and Bowser owners these days are being forced to subserviently follow in step, holding those little blue “doo-doo” bags at the ready that keep the neighbors’ grass green instead of brown and minimize the number of summer flies to a billion per square mile. No longer will the current generation be allowed to use pooper-scoopers; they must in fact be pooper “stoopers,” bending down, turning the bag inside out to form a glove, and then – EEECH – making the grass environmentally friendly again by picking it up, reversing the bag and hurriedly looking for the nearest neighbor’s garbage can who might conveniently be at church or shopping at the grocery store. One can only hope that Fido is mildly constipated, if you get my drift. I can recall the diaper days with my three kids. It wasn’t a pleasant experience, but those non-environmentally friendly Pampers at least afforded one-stop dropping – easy on, easy off – no touchy, no feely. In those days, a doggie bag was something you asked for in a fine restaurant to take home the steak bones. Now it’s a blue plastic reminder that the world is changing and in many respects our daily routine is becoming a dog’s life.
A similar metaphor could be applied to the 45 million citizens of the State of California. Once “golden” and the land of entrepreneurial opportunity, the state has turned from filet mignon to ground chuck and its residents are now on a short leash as opposed to masters of their own universe. Unemployment at 12.2% is near the nation’s highest and its Baa bond rating is the country’s lowest. Its schools are abysmal, competing with Louisiana and Mississippi for the lowest rating in the federal government’s National Assessment of Educational Progress. While the air is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago, the freeways are stereotypically jammed and increasingly less free – the age of the toll road serving the exasperated (or simply the Mercedes owners) is upon us.
Our canine existence has many fathers. Perhaps more than any other state, California has been affected by its perverted form of government, requiring a two-thirds vote by state legislators to effectively pass a budget. In addition, the state’s laws are almost tragically shaped by a form of direct democracy more resemblant of the Jacksonian era, where the White House furniture was constantly at risk due to unruly citizens, high on whisky, and low on morals and common sense. Propositions from conservatives and liberals alike have locked up much of the budget, with Proposition 13 in 1978 reducing property taxes by 57% and Prop. 98 in 1988 requiring 40% of the general fund to be spent on schools. Recently, much of any excess has been gobbled not only by teachers, but unbelievably by a prison lobby that would be the envy of any on Washington’s K Street.
The result has been a $26 billion deficit that was supposedly “closed” in recent weeks, but which largely was a “kick the can” accounting scheme that postponed the pain, or better yet, pled for a federal solution to self-inflicted wounds. State budgets of course are required to be balanced each year, but that has long been a fiction throughout most of the country. Still, California’s 2009 fix was perhaps the longest kick of the can in history, refusing effectively to raise taxes, superficially cutting expenses, and shaming its fading image by refusing to disburse required billions to local counties and communities, as well as using accounting tricks that couldn’t fool a grade-schooler. In the process, they managed to reinvent the IOU, paying bills in virtual scrip that then traded at substantial discounts on eBay of all places. They have issued tax anticipation notes of all sorts with a multitude of lettered configurations that anagram aficionados would revel in. Just last week the state extended its begging bowl for $8 billion of “RANs” (Revenue Anticipation Notes) at an onerous money market rate of 1 1⁄2%. Previously they had issued “RAWs” (Revenue Anticipation Warrants). “BAGs” might be next – blue BAGS, that is, full of the doo-doo that California citizens have grown used to picking up.
There are signs that California voters are ready to make some tough choices, having recently refused to pass five propositions that would have extended tax hikes and failed to address spending. Whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger and legislators will agree to a constitutional convention to address the poisonous proposition plebiscite itself is a larger question that will likely be affirmatively answered only if the state economy continues to remain in the tank, which it likely will. But California’s problems, while somewhat unique and self-inflicted, are really America’s problems, and not just because the California economy is 15% of national GDP. While California’s $26 billion deficit is not directly comparable to the federal gap of $1 trillion-plus, they both reflect a lack of discipline and indeed vision to perceive that the strong growth in revenues was driven by the same excess leverage and the same delusionary asset appreciation that was bound to approach cliff’s edge. California’s property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes were all artificially elevated by national and indeed global imbalances as the U.S. manufactured paper, and Asia manufactured things in mercantilistic exchange. Total tax revenues have actually fallen 14% over the past 12 months in California and substantially more in other states. At some point, that Fantasyland merry-go-round had to stop and whether the defining moment was marked by Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, or the tumultuous week that followed in September of 2008 is really not the point.
What is critical to recognize is that both California and the U.S., as well as numerous global lookalikes such as the U.K., Spain, and Eastern European invalids, are in a poor position to compete in a global economy where capitalism is morphing from its decades-long emphasis on finance and levered risk taking to a more conservative, regulated, production-oriented system advantaged by countries focusing on thrift and deferred gratification. The term “capitalism” itself speaks to “capital” – the accumulation of it and the eventual efficient employment of it – for growth in profits and real wages alike.
What California once had and is losing rapidly is its “capital”: unquestionably in its ongoing double-digit billion dollar deficits, but also in its crown jewel educational system that led to Silicon Valley miracles such as Hewlett Packard, Apple, Google, and countless other new age innovators. In addition, its human capital is beginning to exit as more people move out of the state than in. While the United States as a whole has yet to suffer that emigration indignity, the same cannot be said for foreign-born and U.S.-educated scientists and engineers who now choose to return to their homelands to seek opportunity. Lady Liberty’s extended hand offering sanctuary to other nations’ “tired, poor and huddled masses” may be limited to just that. The invigorated wind up elsewhere.
Now that our financial system has been stabilized, one wonders whether California’s “Governator” and indeed the Obama Administration has the capital, the vision, and indeed the discipline of its citizenry to turn things around. Our future doggie bags can hold steak bones or doo-doo of an increasingly familiar smell. For now investors should be holding their noses, their risk orientation, as well as their blue bags, until proven otherwise. Specifically that continues to dictate a focus on high quality bonds and steady dividend paying stocks that can survive, if not thrive, in our journey to a “new normal” economy of slower growth, muted profit gains, and potential capital destruction via default, abrogation of property rights, and dollar devaluation.
William H. Gross
Managing Director
A similar metaphor could be applied to the 45 million citizens of the State of California. Once “golden” and the land of entrepreneurial opportunity, the state has turned from filet mignon to ground chuck and its residents are now on a short leash as opposed to masters of their own universe. Unemployment at 12.2% is near the nation’s highest and its Baa bond rating is the country’s lowest. Its schools are abysmal, competing with Louisiana and Mississippi for the lowest rating in the federal government’s National Assessment of Educational Progress. While the air is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago, the freeways are stereotypically jammed and increasingly less free – the age of the toll road serving the exasperated (or simply the Mercedes owners) is upon us.
Our canine existence has many fathers. Perhaps more than any other state, California has been affected by its perverted form of government, requiring a two-thirds vote by state legislators to effectively pass a budget. In addition, the state’s laws are almost tragically shaped by a form of direct democracy more resemblant of the Jacksonian era, where the White House furniture was constantly at risk due to unruly citizens, high on whisky, and low on morals and common sense. Propositions from conservatives and liberals alike have locked up much of the budget, with Proposition 13 in 1978 reducing property taxes by 57% and Prop. 98 in 1988 requiring 40% of the general fund to be spent on schools. Recently, much of any excess has been gobbled not only by teachers, but unbelievably by a prison lobby that would be the envy of any on Washington’s K Street.
The result has been a $26 billion deficit that was supposedly “closed” in recent weeks, but which largely was a “kick the can” accounting scheme that postponed the pain, or better yet, pled for a federal solution to self-inflicted wounds. State budgets of course are required to be balanced each year, but that has long been a fiction throughout most of the country. Still, California’s 2009 fix was perhaps the longest kick of the can in history, refusing effectively to raise taxes, superficially cutting expenses, and shaming its fading image by refusing to disburse required billions to local counties and communities, as well as using accounting tricks that couldn’t fool a grade-schooler. In the process, they managed to reinvent the IOU, paying bills in virtual scrip that then traded at substantial discounts on eBay of all places. They have issued tax anticipation notes of all sorts with a multitude of lettered configurations that anagram aficionados would revel in. Just last week the state extended its begging bowl for $8 billion of “RANs” (Revenue Anticipation Notes) at an onerous money market rate of 1 1⁄2%. Previously they had issued “RAWs” (Revenue Anticipation Warrants). “BAGs” might be next – blue BAGS, that is, full of the doo-doo that California citizens have grown used to picking up.
There are signs that California voters are ready to make some tough choices, having recently refused to pass five propositions that would have extended tax hikes and failed to address spending. Whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger and legislators will agree to a constitutional convention to address the poisonous proposition plebiscite itself is a larger question that will likely be affirmatively answered only if the state economy continues to remain in the tank, which it likely will. But California’s problems, while somewhat unique and self-inflicted, are really America’s problems, and not just because the California economy is 15% of national GDP. While California’s $26 billion deficit is not directly comparable to the federal gap of $1 trillion-plus, they both reflect a lack of discipline and indeed vision to perceive that the strong growth in revenues was driven by the same excess leverage and the same delusionary asset appreciation that was bound to approach cliff’s edge. California’s property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes were all artificially elevated by national and indeed global imbalances as the U.S. manufactured paper, and Asia manufactured things in mercantilistic exchange. Total tax revenues have actually fallen 14% over the past 12 months in California and substantially more in other states. At some point, that Fantasyland merry-go-round had to stop and whether the defining moment was marked by Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, or the tumultuous week that followed in September of 2008 is really not the point.
What is critical to recognize is that both California and the U.S., as well as numerous global lookalikes such as the U.K., Spain, and Eastern European invalids, are in a poor position to compete in a global economy where capitalism is morphing from its decades-long emphasis on finance and levered risk taking to a more conservative, regulated, production-oriented system advantaged by countries focusing on thrift and deferred gratification. The term “capitalism” itself speaks to “capital” – the accumulation of it and the eventual efficient employment of it – for growth in profits and real wages alike.
What California once had and is losing rapidly is its “capital”: unquestionably in its ongoing double-digit billion dollar deficits, but also in its crown jewel educational system that led to Silicon Valley miracles such as Hewlett Packard, Apple, Google, and countless other new age innovators. In addition, its human capital is beginning to exit as more people move out of the state than in. While the United States as a whole has yet to suffer that emigration indignity, the same cannot be said for foreign-born and U.S.-educated scientists and engineers who now choose to return to their homelands to seek opportunity. Lady Liberty’s extended hand offering sanctuary to other nations’ “tired, poor and huddled masses” may be limited to just that. The invigorated wind up elsewhere.
Now that our financial system has been stabilized, one wonders whether California’s “Governator” and indeed the Obama Administration has the capital, the vision, and indeed the discipline of its citizenry to turn things around. Our future doggie bags can hold steak bones or doo-doo of an increasingly familiar smell. For now investors should be holding their noses, their risk orientation, as well as their blue bags, until proven otherwise. Specifically that continues to dictate a focus on high quality bonds and steady dividend paying stocks that can survive, if not thrive, in our journey to a “new normal” economy of slower growth, muted profit gains, and potential capital destruction via default, abrogation of property rights, and dollar devaluation.
William H. Gross
Managing Director
Monday, October 12, 2009
John Mauldin's latest email
+ Each year we allow almost 1 million immigrants into the US, mostly family of people already here. I suggest that for the next two years we stop that. Instead, let anyone who can buy a home, passes basic screening, and can demonstrate the ability to pay for health insurance immigrate to the US and get a temporary green card. If they behave, then the card becomes permanent after four years.
We almost immediately put a floor on the housing market, absorb the excess homes, and within a year the housing-construction market, along with the jobs that are now gone, will be back. That is stimulus that costs the taxpayers nothing.
+ While I can't believe I am writing this, taxes are going to have to rise, if for no other reason than this Congress is hell bent on raising taxes. But rescinding the entire Bush tax cuts, plus adding a 10% surcharge as Congress wants to do in one fell swoop, is an absolute guarantee of a recession. So do it gradually over (say) 4 years, and then reinstitute the cuts when the deficit is under 2% of GDP. Remember the negative tax-multiplier effect of raising taxes. And the definitive work on that was done by Obama's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer.
We should consider a VAT tax and a major cut/reorganization of the corporate tax. We need to encourage corporations to hire more, and you do that by taxing less. Let's make our corporations more competitive, not less. Our taxes are much higher than those of any of our major competitors. And please forget that insane carbon tax. If you want to cut emissions, do it straightforwardly by raising taxes significantly on gasoline. Don't back-door it on consumers. (And I am NOT advocating such a policy.)
+ An aggressive tax benefit for new venture-capital money that is invested in new technologies will result in new industries. The only way we can grow our way out of this mess is to create whole new industries, like we did in the late '70s and '80s. (Think computers and the internet and telecom.)
+ Unemployment is likely to continue to rise and last longer than ever before. We have to take care of the basic needs of those who want work but can't find it. Unemployment insurance should be extended to those who are still looking for work past the time for benefits to expire, and some program of local volunteer service should be instituted as the price for getting continued benefits after the primary benefits time period runs out. Not only will this help the community, but it will get the person out into the world where he is more likely to meet someone who can give him a job. But the costs of this program should be revenue-neutral. Something else has to be cut.
+ We have to re-hink our military costs (I can't believe I am writing this!). We now spend almost 50% of the world's total military budget. Maybe we need to understand that we can't fight two wars and support hundreds of bases around the world. If we kill the goose, our ability to fight even one medium-sized war will be diminished. The harsh reality is that everything has to be re-evaluated. As an example, do we really need to be in Korea? If so, why can't Korea pay for much of the cost? They are now a rich nation. There are budgetary fiscal limits to being the policeman for the world.
+ Glass-Steagall, or some form of it, should be brought back. Banks, which are subject to taxpayer bailouts, should not be in the investment banking and derivatives-creating business. Derivatives, especially credit default swaps, should be on an exchange, and too big to fail must go. Banks have enough risk just making loans. Leverage should be dialed down, and hedge funds selling what amounts to naked call options in any form, derivative or otherwise, should be regulated.
Let me see, is there any group I have not offended yet? But something like I am suggesting is going to have to be done at some point. There is no way we can continue forever on the current path. At some point, we will hit the wall. The fight between the bug and the windshield always ends in favor of the windshield. The bond market is going to have to see a credible effort to get back to a reasonable deficit, or we risk a very difficult economic environment. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
It is not going to be easy to persuade a majority of Americans that we need to do something now. More realistically, we are going to probably have to begin to experience a crisis of some type to get politicians motivated to do something.
This last Tuesday, I spoke to the Financial Leadership Association at the University of Texas at Dallas. It was mostly undergraduates, and my assigned topic was how financial research impacts our investment decisions. In touched on the topic above, in less detail, but pointing out that at some point we are going to have to bring the deficit under reasonable control. I got some push-back, as some could not understand why we just couldn't keep running deficits, as we simply owe it to ourselves. I tried to explain, but for a few of them I was not getting through (though I think most got it). And these were the finance students! I shudder to think what the sociology department would be like.
We are not going back to normal, although it is likely we will see some form of Statistical Recovery. But we cannot get complacent. Somewhere out there is the real potential for another crisis, which will dwarf the last one. You will not want to be long much of anything when it happens, except hedged or liquid investments. Though admittedly, this could go on for a long time. I just don't know how long "long" is. Other than it will be too long and then not long enough.
We almost immediately put a floor on the housing market, absorb the excess homes, and within a year the housing-construction market, along with the jobs that are now gone, will be back. That is stimulus that costs the taxpayers nothing.
+ While I can't believe I am writing this, taxes are going to have to rise, if for no other reason than this Congress is hell bent on raising taxes. But rescinding the entire Bush tax cuts, plus adding a 10% surcharge as Congress wants to do in one fell swoop, is an absolute guarantee of a recession. So do it gradually over (say) 4 years, and then reinstitute the cuts when the deficit is under 2% of GDP. Remember the negative tax-multiplier effect of raising taxes. And the definitive work on that was done by Obama's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer.
We should consider a VAT tax and a major cut/reorganization of the corporate tax. We need to encourage corporations to hire more, and you do that by taxing less. Let's make our corporations more competitive, not less. Our taxes are much higher than those of any of our major competitors. And please forget that insane carbon tax. If you want to cut emissions, do it straightforwardly by raising taxes significantly on gasoline. Don't back-door it on consumers. (And I am NOT advocating such a policy.)
+ An aggressive tax benefit for new venture-capital money that is invested in new technologies will result in new industries. The only way we can grow our way out of this mess is to create whole new industries, like we did in the late '70s and '80s. (Think computers and the internet and telecom.)
+ Unemployment is likely to continue to rise and last longer than ever before. We have to take care of the basic needs of those who want work but can't find it. Unemployment insurance should be extended to those who are still looking for work past the time for benefits to expire, and some program of local volunteer service should be instituted as the price for getting continued benefits after the primary benefits time period runs out. Not only will this help the community, but it will get the person out into the world where he is more likely to meet someone who can give him a job. But the costs of this program should be revenue-neutral. Something else has to be cut.
+ We have to re-hink our military costs (I can't believe I am writing this!). We now spend almost 50% of the world's total military budget. Maybe we need to understand that we can't fight two wars and support hundreds of bases around the world. If we kill the goose, our ability to fight even one medium-sized war will be diminished. The harsh reality is that everything has to be re-evaluated. As an example, do we really need to be in Korea? If so, why can't Korea pay for much of the cost? They are now a rich nation. There are budgetary fiscal limits to being the policeman for the world.
+ Glass-Steagall, or some form of it, should be brought back. Banks, which are subject to taxpayer bailouts, should not be in the investment banking and derivatives-creating business. Derivatives, especially credit default swaps, should be on an exchange, and too big to fail must go. Banks have enough risk just making loans. Leverage should be dialed down, and hedge funds selling what amounts to naked call options in any form, derivative or otherwise, should be regulated.
Let me see, is there any group I have not offended yet? But something like I am suggesting is going to have to be done at some point. There is no way we can continue forever on the current path. At some point, we will hit the wall. The fight between the bug and the windshield always ends in favor of the windshield. The bond market is going to have to see a credible effort to get back to a reasonable deficit, or we risk a very difficult economic environment. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
It is not going to be easy to persuade a majority of Americans that we need to do something now. More realistically, we are going to probably have to begin to experience a crisis of some type to get politicians motivated to do something.
This last Tuesday, I spoke to the Financial Leadership Association at the University of Texas at Dallas. It was mostly undergraduates, and my assigned topic was how financial research impacts our investment decisions. In touched on the topic above, in less detail, but pointing out that at some point we are going to have to bring the deficit under reasonable control. I got some push-back, as some could not understand why we just couldn't keep running deficits, as we simply owe it to ourselves. I tried to explain, but for a few of them I was not getting through (though I think most got it). And these were the finance students! I shudder to think what the sociology department would be like.
We are not going back to normal, although it is likely we will see some form of Statistical Recovery. But we cannot get complacent. Somewhere out there is the real potential for another crisis, which will dwarf the last one. You will not want to be long much of anything when it happens, except hedged or liquid investments. Though admittedly, this could go on for a long time. I just don't know how long "long" is. Other than it will be too long and then not long enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
