Stocks and Precious Metals Charts - Chug-a-Lug - Hi-de-ho, Wall Street Does a Double Back Flip

Uncle Jay and his Monetary Moonshine

"The Federal Reserve, as one writer put it after the recent increase in the discount rate, is in the position of the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just when the party was really warming up.”

William McChesney Martin, Speech to Investment Bankers Association of New York, October 1955


"We're not even thinking about thinking about the consequences of our actions."

Jerome Powell, Chairman, Federal Reserve


"Jukebox and sawdust floor
Sumpin' like I ain't never seen
And I'm just going on fifteen
But with the help of my finaglin' uncle I get snuck in
For my first taste of sin
I said "Lemme have a big old sip"
Brrrrr-bbbb, done a double back flip

Chug-a-lug, chug-a-lug
Make you want to holler hi-de-ho
Burns your tummy, don'tcha know
Chug-a-lug, chug-a-lug."

Roger Miller, Chug-a-lug

The spokesmodels were gushing with excitement as the SP500 snugged its beer goggles and managed to reach its pre-crash high.

The NDX is already in some alternate universe.

Thanks for the hot money for the recovery, Uncle Jay.

Great success.

Gold and silver responded to the call, as the Dollar continued to slide lower.

The commentary about the precious metals on financial TV is so shallow and badly informed that I think the metals may have quite a bit further to go.

The time to sell will be when even the most purblind Wall Street lounge lizards 'get it.'

Stock market will have its August stock option expiration on Friday.

Chug-a-lug, chug-a-lug.

Have a pleasant evening.

Stocks and Precious Metals Charts - Stock Bubble III: The Great Unraveling - Stock Option Expiration Friday

“Realize that narcissists have an addiction disorder. They are strongly addicted to feeling significant. Like any addict they will do whatever it takes to get this feeling often. That is why they are manipulative and fakers. They promise change, but can't deliver if it interferes with their addiction.”

Shannon L. Alder


"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."

Proverbs 26:11


"This is the contempt in which they hold the majority of American people and the political process: the common people are easily led fools, and everyone else who is smart enough to know better has their price.

And they would beggar every middle class voter in the US before they will voluntarily give up one dime of their ill gotten gains."

Simon Johnson, The Quiet Coup, May 2009


"Remember that there will be trying times in the last days.  For people will love only themselves and their money.  They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, dishonoring their parents, and ungrateful.  To them nothing is sacred.  They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and despise what is good. They will betray their friends, be reckless and proud, and love pleasures of the world more than God. They may talk like they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly.  Shun them."

2 Timothy 3:1-5

Stocks had another ranging day that ended up largely unchanged.

Trumpolini had his long-awaited signing ceremony with a Chinese delegation for the Trade-Lite Deal.  His speech was embarrassingly in character.

Gold and silver finished higher, and the Dollar closed a bit lower.

The stock market is now at bubble levels not seen since the Tech Bubble.

A reckoning with reality is on deck, most likely to arrive later this year. How much later is a very good question.

Protect yourselves, your hearts and minds as well as your money.  For the love of most has already gone cold.

Are we truly in the last days as some think?

As Newman observed, most centuries have thought that their times are the worst.  Pride inflates our view of ourselves in many ways.

No one can truly know when the end is coming, as you may recall.

But it seems as though an end of something, thought to be unassailable, is fast approaching.

And the consequences of this failure of pride, and the reaction its fanatical true believers, may be notable, for many years to come.

Try to not become swept up in the madness, remembering who you are and why you are here.

Have a pleasant evening.

John Law and the Mississippi Bubble

John Law and the Mississippi Bubble by Richard Condie, National Film Board of Canada

When You Lie Down With Them Dept: Morgan Stanley Has 69% Tier 1 Capital Exposure to the PIIGS

That statistic about Morgan Stanley was an eye opener in terms of percent of capital exposure. No wonder Angie Merkel is playing hard to get, holding out for more than another back rub. Morgan Stanley looks like it done slipped in the pig wallow, don'cha know.

Gentlemen, start your presses.

Bloomberg
JPMorgan Has Biggest Exposure to Debt Risks in Europe
By Gavin Finch

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second- biggest U.S. bank by assets, has a larger exposure than any of its peers to Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, according to Wells Fargo & Co.

JPMorgan’s exposure to the five so-called PIIGS countries is $36.3 billion, equating to 28 percent of the firm’s Tier-1 capital, a measure of financial strength, Wells Fargo analysts including Matthew Burnell wrote today. Morgan Stanley holds $32.4 billion of debt in the region, which equates to 69 percent of its Tier 1 capital, Burnell wrote.

“Regulatory data suggests JPMorgan’s exposure is largest in aggregate, but Morgan Stanley held the largest aggregate exposure to the PIIGS relative to Tier 1 capital,” the analysts wrote. Overall U.S. bank “exposure to Greece is lower than exposure to
Ireland, Italy and Spain.”

Bonds and stocks plunged across Europe in the past week on concern the Greek debt crisis is spreading across the euro area. Standard & Poor’s this week cut Greece, Portugal and Spain’s credit ratings as concern the nations may fail to meet their debt commitments increased.

U.S. banks held a total of $236.8 billion of exposure to the five nations, including $18.1 billion to Greece, Wells Fargo said. European banks have claims totaling $193.1 billion on Greece, according to the Bank for International Settlements, with another $832.2 billion of claims on Spain.

There Can Be No Bubble in China and the Madness of the Nobility

Just now on Bloomberg Television Peter Levene, the former Lord Mayor of London and distinguished chairman of Lloyds of London, said that there is no bubble in China because "China is so big, their domestic markets are so big, you cannot have bubbles there."

A sincere interpretation of the theoretical underpinnings of this statement would be that the potential demand in China is so great, there can be no possible bubbles there because they are incapable of excess. Interesting theory. Perhaps the US relief effort in the Caribbean is on the right track but insufficient. They can ship their excess and foreclosed housing for the poor souls there. Think of the demand gap that exists between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Well perhaps not.

My God, could this be a variant of Efficient Markets Theory? Or a cousin of Too Big To Fail? Apparently the logic in 'The bigger they come the harder they fall" has been repealed.

Of course China is in a financial bubble. It has been caused by years of pegging their currency at an artificially low rate to stimulate exports, multiplied by a state banking system that acted with command and control subsidies. And of course the US can been exporting monetary inflation for years through its dollar reserve currency. Someone had to absorb it.

But it is what China does next, how they react to the bubble, how they manage the consequences of their financial engineeering, that matters. The US has been in several bubbles of late, and is handling them rather badly, as a result of their tolerance for Mad Hatters like Larry, Tim, and Ben in key policy positions.

To be fair, Chairman Greenspan came out with his own howlers of this caliber, and was accepted by many intelligent people in the States for years. In fact, a whole industry was based on ideas and falsified evidence about the impossibility of a housing bubble in the US that in retrospect seems like barking madness.

Come to think of it, both of these fine men are nobility, KBE, Knights of the British Empire. Perhaps it is something deleterious, or even contagious, that occurs when one is subsumed into nobility? Caligulitis? Did the Queen give them a concussion in the ceremony?

I suspect Lloyds is exposed rather badly to China, and m'Lord is talking his book. What is Greenspan's excuse? Whose book was he talking?

This is why the banks and financial organizations must be retrained, because they seem to be peopled by an ersatz nobility that is disposed to spectacular flights of self-serving fantasy. Come to think of it, there is room in the asylum for the government as well.

The US needs a political system that is not so amenable to soft bribery in campaign contributions, and the world needs a reserve currency that is not controlled by the Anglo-American banks. Control the currency, control the world.

And as for the bubbles that keep taking down the developing nations, well, here is their mother.







When these trends break, and they will as all Ponzi schemes do, it will be notable.

Reading for the Market Holiday - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

"At length corruption, like a general flood,
Did deluge all, and avarice creeping on,
Spread, like a low-born mist, and hid the sun.
Statesmen and patriots plied alike the stocks,
Peeress and butler shared alike the box;
And judges jobbed, and bishops bit the town,
And mighty dukes packed cards for half-a-crown:
Britain was sunk in lucre's sordid charms."

—Pope

THE SOUTH-SEA COMPANY was originated by the celebrated Harley, Earl of Oxford, in the year 1711, with the view of restoring public credit, which had suffered by the dismissal of the Whig ministry, and of providing for the discharge of the army and navy debentures, and other parts of the floating debt, amounting to nearly ten millions sterling. A company of merchants, at that time without a name, took this debt upon themselves, and the government agreed to secure them, for a certain period, the interest of six per cent. To provide for this interest, amounting to 600,000l. per annum, the duties upon wines, vinegar, India goods, wrought silks, tobacco, whale-fins, and some other articles, were rendered permanent. The monopoly of the trade to the South Seas was granted, and the company, being incorporated by Act of Parliament, assumed the title by which it has ever since been known. The minister took great credit to himself for his share in this transaction, and the scheme was always called by his flatterers "the Earl of Oxford's masterpiece...."

The South Sea Bubble, Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Chapter 2

Dr.Mishkin or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bubble

Former Fed governor Fred Mishkin distinguishes between bad bubbles, that hurt banks, and good bubbles like the tech bubble, that just hurt investors and distort the economy.

Is the Fed creating a bubble in equities now? Probably.

Do they care, are they concerned? No, not according to ex Fed governor Fred Mishkin.

We find that there is an odd framing of the question, which seems rather binary. Either there is a bubble, or no recovery, because the Fed must tighten and risk a new recession.

There are other things the Fed and the Treasury might do to ecourage banks to lend, rather than to engage in market speculation in imitation of Goldman Sachs, the trading bank with no depositors or borrowers.

Here is why Fred Mishkin has learned to stop worrying and love irrational exuberance fueled by reckless monetary expansion and financial engineering.

There is also the little detail, by the way, of the kinship between the credit bubble, created by the Fed, in response to the collapse of the tech bubble, which was also created by the Fed. Fred seems to think the credit bubble had a virgin birth.

So, preserve your precious bodily fluids while you read this, and be on the lookout for economic preverts and their quantitative preversions.

Financial Times
Not all bubbles present a risk to the economy
By Frederic Mishkin
November 9 2009 20:08

There is increasing concern that we may be experiencing another round of asset-price bubbles that could pose great danger to the economy. Does this danger provide a case for the US Federal Reserve to exit from its zero-interest-rate policy sooner rather than later, as many commentators have suggested? The answer is no.

Are potential asset-price bubbles always dangerous? Asset-price bubbles can be separated into two categories. The first and dangerous category is one I call “a credit boom bubble”, in which exuberant expectations about economic prospects or structural changes in financial markets lead to a credit boom. The resulting increased demand for some assets raises their price and, in turn, encourages further lending against these assets, increasing demand, and hence their prices, even more, creating a positive feedback loop. This feedback loop involves increasing leverage, further easing of credit standards, then even higher leverage, and the cycle continues.

Eventually, the bubble bursts and asset prices collapse, leading to a reversal of the feedback loop. Loans go sour, the deleveraging begins, demand for the assets declines further and prices drop even more. The resulting loan losses and declines in asset prices erode the balance sheets at financial institutions, further diminishing credit and investment across a broad range of assets. The resulting deleveraging depresses business and household spending, which weakens economic activity and increases macroeconomic risk in credit markets. Indeed, this is what the recent crisis has been all about.

The second category of bubble, what I call the “pure irrational exuberance bubble”, is far less dangerous because it does not involve the cycle of leveraging against higher asset values. Without a credit boom, the bursting of the bubble does not cause the financial system to seize up and so does much less damage. For example, the bubble in technology stocks in the late 1990s was not fuelled by a feedback loop between bank lending and rising equity values; indeed, the bursting of the tech-stock bubble was not accompanied by a marked deterioration in bank balance sheets. This is one of the key reasons that the bursting of the bubble was followed by a relatively mild recession. Similarly, the bubble that burst in the stock market in 1987 did not put the financial system under great stress and the economy fared well in its aftermath.

Because the second category of bubble does not present the same dangers to the economy as a credit boom bubble, the case for tightening monetary policy to restrain a pure irrational exuberance bubble is much weaker. Asset-price bubbles of this type are hard to identify: after the fact is easy, but beforehand is not. (If policymakers were that smart, why aren’t they rich?) Tightening monetary policy to restrain a bubble that does not materialise will lead to much weaker economic growth than is warranted. Monetary policymakers, just like doctors, need to take a Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”.

Nonetheless, if a bubble poses a sufficient danger to the economy as credit boom bubbles do, there might be a case for monetary policy to step in. However, there are also strong arguments against doing so, which is why there are active debates in academia and central banks about whether monetary policy should be used to restrain asset-price bubbles.

But if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety? At least in the US and Europe, the answer is clearly no. Our problem is not a credit boom, but that the deleveraging process has not fully ended. Credit markets are still tight and are presenting a serious drag on the economy.

Tightening monetary policy in the US or Europe to restrain a possible bubble makes no sense at the current juncture. The Fed decision to retain the language that the funds rate will be kept “exceptionally low” for an “extended period” makes sense given the tentativeness of the recovery, the enormous slack in the economy, current low inflation rates and stable inflation expectations. At this critical juncture, the Fed must not take its eye off the ball by focusing on possible asset-price bubbles that are not of the dangerous, credit boom variety.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.... For the Market and the Democrats

Sometimes they do ring a bell.

Hard to believe that after one of the greatest credit crises in history, Wall Street and the punters went back to their old ways of chasing beta with hot (taxpayer) money.

As ZeroHedge so insightfully observed:

"Sentiment Trader demonstrates how bullish speculative mania as measured by option activity is now at a decade, if not all time, high. With moral hazard having become the only game in town, everyone believes their investments are implicitly guaranteed by the government..."

Paul Krugman, stalwart Democratic liberal economist, took Obama to task recently for his lack of stomach to change and reform the financial system in his column Reform or Bust

"What’s wrong with financial-industry compensation? In a nutshell, bank executives are lavishly rewarded if they deliver big short-term profits — but aren’t correspondingly punished if they later suffer even bigger losses. This encourages excessive risk-taking: some of the men most responsible for the current crisis walked away immensely rich from the bonuses they earned in the good years, even though the high-risk strategies that led to those bonuses eventually decimated their companies, taking down a large part of the financial system in the process...

I was startled last week when Mr. Obama, in an interview with Bloomberg News, questioned the case for limiting financial-sector pay: “Why is it,” he asked, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or N.F.L. football players?”

That’s an astonishing remark — and not just because the National Football League does, in fact, have pay caps. Tech firms don’t crash the whole world’s operating system when they go bankrupt; quarterbacks who make too many risky passes don’t have to be rescued with hundred-billion-dollar bailouts. Banking is a special case — and the president is surely smart enough to know that."

Paul has not yet been able to express the growing concern that many of Obama's top advisors and key staff managers are hopelessly conflicted, if not corrupted, in dealing with Wall Street.; The question can be asked, "if Obama is that smart, why is he acting so slowly, clumsily, ineffectively, timidly?"

The answer gets to the heart of the proposition put forward by Richard Nixon, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook."

So which is it to be: ineffective blowhard or corrupt politician? The jury is still out, and there is time for change. But the window is closing.