The Royal Bank of Canada
(RBC) has joined the gold bull ranks. According to Myles Zyblock, the
Chief Institutional Strategist at RBC Capital Markets, it could go as
high as US$3,800 (i.e. almost triple) within three years although “The
real fireworks might still be several quarters away.” - the real question
that nobody addresses is what the price of gold might be, three years
hence, in the currencies of the other 95% of the world’s population,
in other words, what part of the increase in the US dollar price will
be ‘real’ & what part merely a function of a cratering US dollar
– as a contrarian this unanimity makes me nervous; on the other hand,
this may just be the exception to the rule, i.e. this time ‘it is
different”.
A US ex-IMF staff member
with homes in both the US & France recently noted France is in trouble
& just cannot go on spending money the way it has been; so he is
considering selling his house there. But, he said, the US is not that
different; it actually has more debt than France & the average Frenchman
doesn’t carry nowhere near much debt as the average American. And
while many French at least know there is a problem, even if they don’t
understand it well enough to do anything serious or smart about it,
the average American doesn’t even know there is a problem, or is
in denial - which is worse. He says Sarkozy is at least starting
to try & bring government spending in line with revenues, while
in America that conversation hasn’t really begun yet, and wonders
“Maybe I should sell all my assets in the US too” (as George
Soros’ original partner in the Quantum Fund, Jim Rogers, did several
years ago, before moving, lock, stock & barrel, to Singapore.
A recent Gallup poll
on Americans’ views on five major achievements of Obama during his
first two years in office found that only one, financial reform, was
endorsed by a majority; the other four, incl. health care and the bank-
& automaker bailouts, were given a firm ‘thumbs-down’.
The latest issue of the
Economist made the following judgment calls on Obama’s first two years
in office. He was handed a “poisoned legacy”. As a Presidential
candidate he had a “silver tongue, while in office he had developed
“a tin ear”. And, while as a candidate he had promised hope &
change, as President “he had delivered neither … although not entirely
through a fault of his own” (although he certainly must take a
goodly share of the blame).
GLEANINGS VERSION
II
No. 382 - October
28th, 2010
THE BLAME-CHINA
GAME (Time, Zachary Karabell)
· At Washington’s
insistence the IMF Annual Meeting became the latest battleground pitting
the US against China. US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged it
to pressure China to adopt a “more flexible, more market-oriented
exchange rate management” (i.e. ‘you’re rigging your currency;
so cut it out, or else! - what else?). Our conventional wisdom
is that China’s policies have caused our trade deficit & the loss
of American manufacturing jobs, and have enabled China to amass huge
foreign currency reserves. We’re irked the Chinese save so much in
the belief this worsens the global imbalances & endangers our recovery
from the financial turmoil that shook the world. And we think the solution
is for China’s currency to appreciate quickly by 20% to 40%.
· The idea we aren’t
responsible for our problems is a black-is-white, up-is-down view. American
consumers demanded cheaper stuff, so companies responded by going to
low-cost labour markets, Japan in the 70's, Mexico in the 90's &
China since 2000. But we ignore this & blame China, not ourselves,
for this. Our zero-sum attitude toward China is a relic from an era
when nations defined economics while we now live in a global economy,
and blaming it for our domestic problems reflects a dangerous refusal
to accept the world as it is. Retaliating against China won’t bring
back manufacturing jobs to the US, revive construction, retool the US
labour force, rebuild rotting bridges or create a next generation energy
grid.
While we can’t
force China to bend we can cause serious disruptions to the global economy
& risk plunging the world into chaos. Or, like the great nation
we say we are, we can tend to our problems at home rather than
look abroad for dragons to slay.
Prior to 2005, the
talk was also of a need for a 20% to 40% revaluation of the yuan &
over the next three years it was in fact allowed to nudge 20%
higher, which did squat for the US trade deficit. Now the talk is of
more of the same but, unless America gets its act together first, the
outcome will likely be similar. And while China is still accumulating
dollars, it is now shoveling them out the door again as fast as it can,
making strategic investments, at the US’ expense, all over the world,
incl. even Greece, that will boost its future global power
& influence whereas the US keeps going deeper in debt, wasting money
on peripherals & becoming more inward-looking. But Beijing is now
hoisted on its own petard; for a creeping yuan revaluation could bring
on the ‘mother’ of all ‘hot money’ flows while a big one-time
adjustment could affect its economy in a way that would lead to serious
domestic unrest. And the timing is getting worse as it faces a leadership
change, & Washington a leadership race, in 2012 (the author is a
1996 Harvard Ph.D. who heads New York-based River Twice - which analyzes
economic & political trends - after having been Executive Vice President
& Chief Economist of, and manager of an award-winning stock portfolio
at, Fred Alger Management, was designated a
“Global Leader for Tomorrow” by the World Economic Forum in 2003,
& proved prophetic in August 2007 when he
told an interviewer that there was a risk that
”fewer wise decisions have been made by a great number of people on
Wall Street than people ... suspect.”)
GEITHNER PROPOSES
TARGETS FOR CURRENT ACCOUNTS (CMS FOREX, Nick Nasad)
· At the G-20 he
argued it will be difficult to agree on how to avoid a ‘currency war’
when the focus is on currencies & exchange rates; so it should be
shifted to the current account imbalances between the major economies.
Hence he called on the G-20 to target a 4% ‘cap’ on countries’
current account surpluses, urging those with persistent surpluses to
“undertake structural, fiscal, and exchange rate policies to boost
domestic demand” & those with ”significantly undervalued currencies”
to allow them to “adjust fully over time”, in return for which,
he said, the advanced economies “would pare their budget shortfalls.”
· While Canada’s
Finance Minister, unsurprisingly, called it a “step in the
right direction” & his Australian counterpart called it “constructive”,
Japan’s Finance Minister said “setting numerical targets would be
unrealistic” & India’s that caps would be hard to quantify,
while Germany’s rejected “a command economy approach” &
Desmond Lachman, a former Deputy Director of the IMF’s Policy Department,
now a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called it
“a good idea that is not going to go anywhere.”
A current account
deficit occurs when a country earns less from exports & its foreign
investments than it spends on imports & investments abroad. In the
decade ended in 2006 the US current account deficit ballooned almost
four-fold to 6% of GDP as Americans went on a debt-financed consumption
binge. Geithner is in effect proposing that everyone else should start
consuming with the reckless abandon that got America in trouble.
But the primary responsibility for getting out of an
‘over one’s head indebtedness’ situation is for the debtor to
tighten his belt, painful as that may be,
before creditors will step in to help (the global situation is
not unlike that in Europe where it took a near-death experience before
Greece saw the light, except that in this case there is no IMF or EU
to backstop the spendthrift, and that it is a key, not a peripheral,
economy that is in trouble). As to Geithner’s suggestion that, in
exchange for action by creditors, the US would
“pare” its budget shortfall, he has got
the priorities reversed & this claim
cannot help but sound hollow to any outsider given the current state
of the US political landscape.
SOME FED OFFICIALS
MULL MORE FLEXIBLE INFLATION MANDATE (WSJ)
· Soft prices
in a weak economy are worrying the Fed & will result in a QE2 program
of asset purchases, likely after the next FOMC meeting on November 2nd
& 3rd (& the November 2nd mid-term elections).
But some Fed officials, incl. Secretary Geithner’s successor as
New York Fed President, William Dudley (the only Regional Fed President
who is a permanent voting member of the FOMC) think the Fed should go
further & tolerate levels of inflation above its notional 2% target
to compensate for earlier periods of weak price gains (this, of course,
would only be a “temporary measure” to complement other stimulative
efforts & be ended once the economy had fully recovered).
This can be squared
with the Fed’s legal mandate to pursue reasonable price stability
by redefining “reasonable’ in the context of the other half of its
mandate, maximum growth & employment. Those who make this argument
fuss about deflation being hard to get under control once it gains a
foothold (the argument traditionally used to justify vigilance on inflation)
at a time that inflation, both core & nominal, is still relatively
comfortably in positive territory. The question is whether Bernanke
would sign off on the idea; for just last August he said that such a
move would be “inappropriate” as it could lead to unwanted volatility
& economic uncertainty.
LAND OF THE FREE,
HOME OF THE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED (G&M, Joanna Slater)
· At a conference
in New York this week, a high-powered panel addressed a once unthinkable
scenario, that of a large US state defaulting. This being discussed
so openly shows the extent of investors’ worries over the fiscal situation
of many states & cities.
The Great Recession left yawning holes in their budgets as their revenues
collapsed. California earlier this month finally approved a budget,
100 days late, that filled a US$19BN budget gap for this year through
cuts & delays, and some optimistic assumptions. Next spring Illinois
will face a deficit of US$15BN, half its day-to-day spending, and Nevada
isn’t much better off. Absent a robust recovery soon,
things can only get worse : federal stimulus spending, some of which
went directly to the states, is nearly gone, and within a few years
rising pension & benefit payments to retirees will add to the states’
fiscal ordeal.
· Meredith Whitney,
a financial analyst known for being bearish on banks (she blew the
whistle on Citigroup before the system cracked) has a deja vu feeling;
for she sees “a lack of transparency and an abundance of complacency
on the part of investors and politicians, just as we saw before the
banks imploded”. And investors are wary : judging by credit
default swap prices they now deem California & Illinois less creditworthy
than Egypt, Bulgaria & Vietnam. But public finance ‘experts’
pooh-pooh the possibility of defaults at the state level & California’s
State Treasurer claims only “thermonuclear war” would prevent
the state from repaying its debt.
The states will have
to cut spending & raise taxes, and try & ‘off-load’ their
financial burden onto Washington and cut their transfers to the cities,
which will create a whole new set of stresses, incl. possibly early
defaults. And they will improvise, for “If states have shown
us anything, is that they can find gimmick after gimmick after gimmick
(to massage their finances) ... They’re creative, they’re
good at it.” Former Treasury Secretary & Citigroup Vice-Chairman
Robert Rubin & several distinguished economists on a panel at the
conference agreed the likely outcome would be for Washington to help
a state make an imminent bond payment, but only in exchange for strict
conditions, possibly including an oversight authority that would in
effect take fiscal decisions out of the state’s hands.
California’s Treasurer
may get his “thermonuclear war”, albeit not in the form he is talking
about. And the states’ fiscal predicament is of critical importance
to the US’ future; for they provide most of the people-related services,
like education & health, that are critical to its
longer-term economic well being. Gimmickry, to be successful, requires
credibility, but in the absence thereof becomes counter-productive (just
ask the Greek government). What might Washington use
‘to help a state make a debt payment”? And what if more than one
or two states ended up on its door step at the same time? The irony
of it all is that most states have far lower debt-to-GDP ratios than
many supposedly more creditworthy souvereigns; but defaults or bankruptcies
are typically caused not by a lack of assets but of liquidity (a lack
of cash to meet their obligations promptly as they fall due). And that’s
where the states are vulnerable; for they can borrow only for capital
spending-, not operating- purposes.
FOR THE FIRST TIME,
U.S. TREASURY SELLS BONDS WITH A NEGATIVE YIELD
(G&M, Brian Milner)
· At the October
25th UST bond auction investors snapped up US$10BN of five-year
bonds at a 0.555% negative yield. But .... these were TAPS - Treasury
Inflation-Protected Securities. This underscores investor interest in
inflation-protected assets ahead of the now widely expected Fed QE2
move, after the next FOMC meeting, to buy up to US$1TR of bonds (in
a vain?) attempt to reflate the struggling economy. Investors
will get a positive yield if inflation will average over 1.56% over
the life of these bonds (regular five-year UST bonds currently
yield 1.18%, almost 40 bps below the inflation rate - in other words,
they generate a 40 bps negative ‘real’ rate of return).
Obviously some investors
disagree with the Fed’s view deflation is a greater risk than inflation.
BERNANKE TREADS
FINE LINE WITH GREENBACK (G&M, Kevin Carmichael)
· The final communique
of the G-20 meeting in South Korea said it had agreed to “move toward
more market-determined exchange-rate systems ... to refrain from competitive
devaluation of currencies ... (and that) advanced economies,
including those with reserve currencies, will be vigilant against excessive
volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates” (words,
words, words, but no action, and as we all know
‘action speaks louder than words’) But even before the meeting
had ended did Bernanke come under fire from an unusual quarter,
his fellow international policy makers, for being a poor steward of
the world’s primary reserve currency.
Germany’s Economics Minister, Rainer Bruederle, started the debate
over the Fed’s QE plans when he said “An excessive, permanent
increase in the money supply is ... indirect manipulation” (which
is what the US has been accusing China of). This suggests that even
America’s old friends in the G-7 ‘club’, not just the emerging
powers, are upset with its monetary policy
· In the past month
traders, as policy makers & analysts have been absorbed by the Fed’s
role in the “currency war”. China, accused of keeping too tight
a leash on the yuan, has countered by arguing an unduly loose
US monetary policy is the real problem by causing a stampede out of
the US dollar in search of higher yields elsewhere (on the Monday after
the G-20 meeting, 15 of the world’s 16 major currencies rose against
the US dollar, with the Yen rising to a 15-year high & the Canadian
dollar jumping 63¢ to US$98.01).
· But Bernanke is
in a bind since the Fed believes that if it addressed foreign currency
market volatility it could contravene its legal mandate of maintaining
price stability & achieving “maximum”employment because deflation
is a threat & the economy growing too slowly.
When the global economy’s
biggest player implies that, international considerations & obligations
be damned, & domestic factors are all that matters,
it gives a powerful signal & incentive to others that the order
of the day is ‘sauve qui peut’ (& the Devil gets the hindmost).
HOENIG SAYS EXCESSIVE
LIQUIDITY CAN LEAD TO ‘VERY BAD OUTCOMES’
(Bloomberg, Joshua
Zumbrun)
· Kansas City Fed
President Thomas Hoenig believes pumping excessive liquidity into the
banking system may potentially harm the economy & cause higher unemployment.
He told an economic forum in Albuquerque, NM, on October 21st
“Monetary policy is all about an environment that’s supposed to
be stable ... When you try to use it in a way that floods the market
with liquidity, you can ... get very bad outcomes”. While Chicago
Fed President Charles Evans believes the US economy is in a liquidity
trap & a bit more inflation would help it grow more faster,
Hoenig maintains “Fine tuning inflationary expectations with the blunt
instrument called monetary policy is a highly risky endeavour” &,
in response to a question, “I don’t think we’re in a liquidity
trap because we are, in fact, growing and will continue to grow unless
we create another crisis.” [Hoenig has been the Kansas Fed’s President
since 1991 & is the Fed’s longest-serving policy maker. He has
dissented from every FOMC decision this year, opposes further asset
purchases because the benefits thereof “are likely to be smaller than
the costs”, & has argued for some time that the Fed should start
taking steps to lift interest rates from near zero, saying “I am for
non-zero ... (albeit) against high interest rates while we are
in a fragile recovery.”]
As he worries about
his colleagues making light of inflation, and about the potential costs
& benefits of a QE2 program, other FOMC members, incl. Boston Fed
President, Eric Rosengren, believe
‘vigorous action is required’ to counteract the risk of deflation
& further asset purchases can
be effective. And the Fed may have painted itself into a corner;
for the UST market has already “priced in” a
big asset purchase program, even though Rosengren recently implied
it may be focused on securities other than UST paper [such as mortgage-backed
securities (MBS)? - which , of course, would result in still more risk
being “off-loaded” from the private- onto the public- sector, especially
since the legal status of some MBS
has come into question following revelations some foreclosures may have
be inappropriate, if not outright illegal, with some investors, incl.
Fanny Mae, pressuring banks take back MBS they had earlier sold them].
TREASURY HID A.I.G
LOSS (NYT, Mary Williams Walsh)
· Earlier this month
the US Treasury issued a report saying tax payers would ultimately lose
only US$5BN on their US$182BN AIG rescue (a fraction of its earlier
estimates). But Neil M. Barovsky, the Special Director General for the
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) - a holdover from the Bush Administration,
a Goldman alum & a Henry Paulson protege - said on October 25th
this was due to it abandoning its usual method for valuing investments
which “In our view ... is a significant failure in their transparency
... The American people have a right for full and complete disclosure
about their investment in A.I.G. ... and the U.S. government has an
obligation, when they are describing potential losses, to give complete
information.” He said that, after he had written Treasury Secretary
Geithner in mid-October recommending he correct the report, perhaps
by adding a footnote saying its methodology for calculating its losses
had changed, he had been informed (by a third tier Treasury official)
that its methodology hadn’t changed, only its assumptions.
It’s all a matter
of valuation. With the government’s 79% stake soon to rise to 92%,
the publicly traded ‘float’ is small, & he questions
the Treasury’s key assumption, that it can sell off a significant
portion of its holding without a severely negative effect on the market
price of AIG shares.
Next month the Treasury
will issue its audited financial statements. Since they must pass an
auditor’s scrutiny, the potential loss could go back up again to possibly
as much as US$40-US$50BN (which could result in a loss of credibility
for the Treasury it doesn’t need at this time).
NATURE TALKS HEADED
FOR SUCCESS (BBCNews, Richard Black)
The UN talks in Japan
on the Convention on Biological Diversity on a new deal to protect nature
& equitably share in its benefits in its dying moments seemed on
track to a positive ending. Western nations conceded the thorniest issue,
the sharing of natural genetic resources (which would compensate developing
countries when products are made from genetic material of organisms
originating in their territories - important in plant breeding &,
increasingly, drug manufacture). The other key issue, money, that
had Brazil & its allies arguing that by 2020 US$200BN per year should
be made available for biodiversity conservation, was supposedly
solved by an agreement to have such a plan in place by 2012 when Brazil
will host the Second Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
As
most of these meetings are wont to, the main area of agreement is to
keep talking. Canada made the limelight by being named one of the
“Dodos of the Week” by an umbrella group of NGOs for consistently
opposing language in an agreement on the sharing of genetic resources
that would strengthen the rights of indigenous people.