Confessions of a 'Flationary Agnostic

I have no particular allegiance to either the hyperinflation or the deflationary camps. Both outcomes are possible, but not yet probable. Rather than being a benefit, occupying the middle ground too often just puts one in the middle, being able to see the merits in both arguments and possibilities, and being unwilling to ignore the flaws in each argument. But this is where reason takes me.

In a purely fiat regime, where a monetary authority has the ability and the willingness to monetize debt, there is NO mandated, no predetermined outcome for hyperinflation or deflation in the event of a credit crisis, unless that money is pegged to an external standard, which is ruled out by definition in a purely fiat regime.

In a credit crisis there is often a 'credit crunch' which is what was seen in the financial system when short term credit transactions seized up out of fear. This is not the same as a true monetary deflation which is a real contraction in the money supply, at the least. So far we have not seen this. And we may never.

Also, I would have to agree that the eventual fate of all fiat currency is failure and reissuance of a 'new' currency, due to the sustained erosion of a seemingly incessant, if gradual, inflation. This does not HAVE to be, but it is, as an outcome of human nature. Men will always and everywhere eventually succumb to the temptation of currency debasement, a free lunch, and so they cannot be trusted to manage a nation's affairs with the unrestrained keys to the Treasury.

And at the end of a currency's lifespan, there is quite often a bout of serious inflation that precipitates the reissuance and restructuring. How long this period of time can be no one can say.
That is the simple fact of it. The only limitation on the Fed's ability to inflate is the value of the dollar and the bonds; that is, their acceptability to 'creditors' who are willing to exchange goods and services with real value for paper.

And it should be perfectly clear that to choose a monetary deflation as a fiat policy decision for a country that is a net debtor would be bizarre to say the least.

Everything else is noise and generally ad hominem attacks. And the louder the noise, the less likely the person speaking knows anything about monetary systems.

I read that the Fed has taken on (a euphemism for 'monetized') roughly half of the Treasury debt issued in the second quarter of 2009. And it is quite likely that this is only a part of it, that a good portion of the rest of the debt was arranged for with other central banks, including those who are engaged in large scale currency manipulation of their own which is a de facto monetization on the road to default as China will be finding out most likely some day.

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding on the issue of deflation. As we have discussed before, deflation driven by slack demand is not uniform across product and service classes as it would be during a true monetary deflation. That is because goods and services vary in the elasticity of their demand.

Yes some prices will decrease, as one would expect, especially in those assets whose value has been inflated during a preceding bubble and discretionary items with a significant elasticity of demand.

But other items will remain stable or even increase in price, particularly essential items, and those provided from a sector with an oligopolistic framework.

Why? Because those who control access to essentials will seek to increase prices and 'rents' even during severe recessions to make up for lost revenue streams and profits in other areas of their business. Barring government intervention, every crisis has its profiteers.

So we have the phenomenon of banks being bailed out by the government, with public funds, not lending as they had promised, and greatly increasing fees and cutting services whenever and wherever they can on certain instruments such as credit cards, for example. Or other financial firms taking advantage systemic flaws and leverage and loopholes to game the markets, extracting what amounts to increased rents, a tax, on the nation's transactions, further dragging down the real economy.

Credit is not money. Debt is not money per se. These are things that are instrumental to the process of money creation and destruction.

If I 'owe you' ten dollars, are you ten dollars richer? Not unless you hold some sort of legally enforceable piece of paper to back it up, and even then there is a discount on the value of that paper which is repayment risk, the possibility that I might default on that arrangement.

Money is the sanction of the monetary authority on a particular debt arrangement. It is limited to only that which has been sanctioned, that which passes through the hands of the creditor "into" the money system. This may occur at the point of origin, the central bank, or one of its officially designated representatives, sanctioned by executive order or under the law created by the Congress.

One does not count a private debt obligation held by the creditor as money, in addition to the actual currency that was delivered to the debtor. That would be double counting, a misunderstanding of the accounting system. The debt held by the creditor is an asset, of varying liquidity and risk.

If you have an unused credit card with a $1000 credit limit, do you have $1000 dollars? Does that $1000 dollars exist anywhere? No, clearly not. You may act differently in having it, it may influence your behaviour, but it is not money.

Once you use that card, and 'borrow' $1000 on that credit line, then it does exist as money, and a corresponding liability of $1000 is created and is held by the bank as an asset.

Is that $1000 debt obligation being held by the bank the same as the $1000 in money that was created when you borrowed it and spent it, putting it into motion within the real economy? No. If anything we might have learned from this credit crisis should sink in, the value of collateralized debt obligations, a collection of assets on a variety of instruments, is deeply affected by risk.

This is why a private debt obligation cannot be money, because it is not significantly riskless and is more an asset. Anything that bears a significant risk of default that is not tied to the full faith and credit of the central monetary authority is not money. It is a product, some proxy for money.

Is the savings deposit in excess of FDIC at my local bank 'money?' Yes, but not of the same quality as cash in my pocket. That is why there are a variety of money supply figures.

Is the reduction of debt directly correlated to the levels of money in the nation's monetary supply? It depends on how it is accounted. The debt can be written off, and no 'money' is destroyed per se but the bank will take a writedown on assets. We are seeing this in action today, as vast amounts of CDS and MBS are devalued on the books of the banks.

We make a distinction obviously between the existence of the money itself, and the means or ability to create money through a particular process, which can itself be impaired, without a reduction in the aggregate supply of 'money' depending on how you account for it.

Here is an interesting chart. It clearly shows the precipitous dropoff in commercial lending, and the actions of the monetary authority and the government to step in and support lending, primarily in the programs of the Fed.



This lack of productive economic vigor is impairing the ability of the Fed to maintain an organic growth in the money supply. But it does not stop it. They have some limitation or impairment in their ability to manage the money supply, because of the slack demand in the economy and the loss of the aid of the 'money multiplier' and the moribund velocity of money. The money that is created by the Fed without a corresponding increase in economic activity is 'hot money' that is particularly dangerous from an inflationary perspective.

Here is an interesting paradox. At a time of slower growth rate of money supply, many might think that this is 'good' for the dollar, because less dollars means more value for each dollar, right? In essence, this is one of the major tenets of those called 'deflationists.'

First, there are not less dollars. The growth rate of dollars is slowing but as one can see, this is a relative thing historically.









But here is the key point.

The growth rate of dollars is slowing at the same time that the 'demand' for dollars, the velocity of money and the creation of new commercial credit, is slowing. GDP is negative, and the growth rate of money supply is still positive, and rather healthy. This is not a monetary deflation, but rather the signs of an emerging stagflation fueled by slow real economic activity and monetization, or hot money, from the Fed. The monetary authority is trying to lead the economic recovery through unusual monetary growth. All they are doing is creating more malinvestment, risk addiction, and asset bubbles.

Money supply and the rate of money supply growth is a confusing topic, primarily because lots of commentators twist it and split hairs about it to make points, without really caring to explain what is actually happening to those who are not specialists. 'Experts' hide behind terminology to obfuscate the situation to support particular policy initiatives under a cloud of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Despicable.

We have not written it out and worked the details yet, and the lags and expectations are always a significant issue, but generally the growth in the broad money supply should bear a positive relationship to the growth rate of real economic activity, with the appropriate lags. It ought not to lead it or lag it artificially except in extreme circumstances. Using money as a 'tool' to stimulate or retard economic activity is a dangerous game indeed, fraught with unintended consequences and unexpected bubbles and imbalances, with a spiral of increasingly destabilizing crises and busts. The Obama Administration bears a heavy responsibility for this because of their failure to reform the system and restore balance to the economy in any meaningful way. Whether it is cowardice, ignorance, or corruption is difficult to judge, but it is a failure without regard to motives.

What makes matters worse is that given the cumulative years of government 'tinkering' some of the key economic measures are hopelessly spoiled. The Consumer Price Index is probably the best example as is shown at Shadowstats. Consumer inflation is a key problem because it is used, as the chain deflator, in calculating real GDP, the basic measure of economic activity in a nation.

And so after the cumulative years of financial engineering by the government and the Federal Reserve, here we are today, caught in an ugly cycle of boom and bust, with an outsized financial sector, a government controlled by the money interests, and a productive economy in a systemic decline.

And this is why we say:

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into a balance between the productive and administrative sectors, before there can be any sustained recovery.

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.

Obama to Tell the G20 to Fix the US By Changing the World

When you can't run a state, run for President. When you can't run your country, attempt to run the world.

This directive to the G20 is probably going to make the Organizer-in-Chief's recent pathetic sermonette on altruism and self-denial to Wall Street seem effective by comparison.

Unless he is as prime an example of boobus Americanus as he appears to be by his actions, we suspect that this proposal is intended merely to be a blue sky diversion to a broadly unachievable goal from a genuine agenda for reform and action on the table including regulating bankers' pay, which might be an annoying hindrance to Obama's constituents on Wall Street. It has been estimated that the reforms on the table from Europe, for example, might cut the trading revenues at Goldman Sachs by a third.

What Obama does not say, and perhaps does not realize, is that the majority of the problems that exist in the US's imbalanced trade relationships is the position of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Owning the reserve currency is a significant benefit for your government and financial sectors, but it makes your manufacturing and productive economy the target of every mercantilist command economy around the globe that is by definition hungry for dollars.

Reuters
Obama wants G20 to rethink global economy
By Jeff Mason and Dave Graham
Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:29am EDT

WASHINGTON/BERLIN (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday he would push world leaders this week for a reshaping of the global economy in response to the deepest financial crisis in decades.

In Europe, officials kept up pressure for a deal to curb bankers' pay and bonuses at a two-day summit of leaders from the Group of 20 countries, which begins on Thursday.

The summit will be held in the former steelmaking center of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, marking the third time in less than a year that leaders of countries accounting for about 85 percent of the world economy will have met to coordinate their responses to the crisis.

The United States is proposing a broad new economic framework that it hopes the G20 will adopt, according to a letter by a top White House adviser.

Obama said the U.S. economy was recovering, even if unemployment remained high, and now was the time to rebalance the global economy after decades of U.S. over-consumption. (The recovery is as tenuous as Mr. Obama's prospects for a second term - Jesse)

"We can't go back to the era where the Chinese or the Germans or other countries just are selling everything to us, we're taking out a bunch of credit card debt or home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them," Obama said in an interview with CNN television. (How about a system where Wall Street thinks it can defraud the world, and take usurious rents on every financial transaction in every market? - Jesse)

For years before the financial crisis erupted in 2007, economists had warned of the dangers of imbalances in the global economy -- namely huge trade surpluses and currency reserves built up by exporters like China, and similarly big deficits in the United States and other economies. (Greenspan dismissed every growing problem with an unswerving prevarication, and the corportocracy provided air support. - Jesse)

With U.S. consumers now holding back on spending after house prices plunged and as unemployment climbs, Washington wants other countries to become engines of growth. (Most of the world would like to cure its problems by net exporting to other countries in unbalanced trade relationships. The Asian preoccupation with mercantilism is in some ways the natural outcome of the US dollar reserve hegemony. There is a bit of a standoff here. - Jesse)

"That's part of what the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh is going to be about, making sure that there's a more balanced economy," Obama told CNN.

China has long been the target of calls from the West to get its massive population to spend more. It may be reluctant to offer a significant change in economic policy when Chinese President Hu Jintao meets Obama this week. (The only way they can spend more is if they get higher real wages, a neat trick when your national policy is based on exploiting the exploitation of your laboring class - Jesse)

The U.S. proposal, sketched out in a letter by Obama's top G20 adviser, Michael Froman, calls for a new "framework" to reflect the balancing process that the White House wants.

"The Framework would be a pledge on the part of G-20 leaders to individually and collectively pursue a set of policies which would lead to stronger, better-balanced growth," said the letter, which was obtained by Reuters. (Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya... Jesse)

Without naming specific countries, the proposal indicates the United States should save more and cut its budget deficit, China should rely less on exports and Europe should make structural changes -- possibly in areas such as labor law -- to make itself more attractive to investment.

To head off reluctance from China, Froman's letter also supported Beijing's call for developing countries to have more say at the International Monetary Fund. (Say = talk, but it does not imply that anyone will listen and take any action. The US owns the IMF. - Jesse)

The IMF would be at the center of a peer review process that would assess member nations' policies and how they affect economic growth...(Most statists are by nature Ponzi politicians who really cannot run anything complex, and have to keep expanding their power and span of control or collapse and be exposed as frauds. Its been a perennial source of mischief throughout history. - Jesse)

Shanghai Exhange to List Foreign Shares in the Yuan

This article highlights the growing move internationally away from the dollar dominance in finance.

But it does also illustrate the 'closed capital account" which restricts the exchange of domestic and foreign currency even today in China.

No country should be allowed full WTO status with a managed and closed currency. There is no way to conduct 'fair trade' in such a regime. And certainly the actions by both Clinton and Bush to advance China as a trading partner while pegging the dollar at a steep devaluation remains a scandal of major proportion.

What would the world say if the US decided to move to a two tier currency system, devaluing the iternational dollar by 40% and then pegging it to a basket of currencies including the Euro, AUS$, Pound and Yen?

Caijing
Shares at Shanghai's International Board to be Denominated in Renminbi
By Fan Junli
09-18 19:59

(Caijing) Shares on Shanghai's too-be-launched international board will be denominated in renminbi rather than U.S. dollars, sources close to regulators told Caijing.

But critics say the decision could doom the board to the same fate of Japan's yen-deonomiated international board, which closed in 2004.

China has been preparing for months to launch an international board on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Fan Xinghai, director-general of Shanghai' Financial Services Office, said September 14 that one or two foreign companies will be listed on the board in early 2010.

One of the key difficulties in preparing the board has been the question of whether the shares listed there should be denominated in renminbi or U.S. dollar, a source said.

U.S. dollar denominated listings would pose several problems. Overseas' companies' listings would be subject to the approval of more than one government department if their shares were denominated in U.S. dollars. Also, China's closed capital account, which restricts the exchange of local and foreign currency, would pose an obstacle to U.S. dollar listings, the source said.

"Now a consensus has been reached that it is not necessary to denominate foreign companies' shares listed on the domestic market in U.S. dollars," the source said.

His comments were confirmed by a several other sources close to regulators.

Critics argue that denominating shares in renminbi will make it difficult for international investors to trade on the international board.

"We may risk repeating the failure of Japan's international board," one securities industry source said.

Japan's international board, where shares were denominated in yen, had 131 listed overseas companies in 1991. But Japanese investors' enthusiasm towards shares on the international board withered and foreign companies began to delist their shares. Only 32 companies remained listed on Tokyo's international board by 2003 and the board eventually closed in 2004.

Nevertheless, supporters of the renminbi denomination arrangement for Shanghai's international board said the failure of Tokyo's international board could not be attributed to yen denomination. They claim it was caused by the slump in the Japanese economy, the yen's appreciation and the high cost of trading cost on the board.

The Dollar Carry Trade

A video from Warren Pollock regarding carry trades

Stock Market Rally: Shenanigans Abounding

This is just an opinion, and it could be wrong, as all opinions may be.

To be long US equities at this point seems risky, bordering on reckless, for anything but a daytrade. And there is plenty of that going on.

The US markets in general have every mark of a maturing Ponzi scheme in the steady run ups on weakness, and the ramps into the close with the selling after hours on weak volumes.

But why?

Thursday is option expiration, a quadruple witch as we recall. September is one of the big ones, often setting up declines in the month of October. Further, we have Rosh Hoshanah beginning at sundown on Friday September 18. As the saying goes, Sell Rosh HaShana and Buy Yom Kippur.

The government is anxious to encourage 'confidence' to the extent of skewing the statistics to create hope in the public, the consumers. The banks are flush with liquidity, but really have no place to put it but for a minimal return at Treasury, or in some hot money trades. They certainly are not interested in making new loans, but the credit card business is reaping some nicely usurious returns between fees and 26% interest at the drop of a hat.

Where is Goldman Sachs business revenue and profit coming from now? How much real investment banking is being done? How much M&A activity and IPOs are there to sustain it at this size, unscathed by the recent market downturns?

Obama and his team have NO credibility for reform on Wall Street after their handling of Goldman Sachs and the AIG payouts. We hear that Goldman had shopped the idea of those derivatives to the London office of AIG which was up for a quick quid, became their biggest customer, and then when the music stopped they managed to obtain the 100 cents on the dollar payouts from the government even as AIG became hopelessly insolvent.

Bonds, stocks, metals, sugar, cocoa, and oil are all moving higher, while the dollar sinks. Is the dollar funding a new carry trade?

The markets are increasingly the flavor of choice, and if the markets do not show a way, they will make one. Volatility is a screaming buy. Put vertical spreads are remarkably cheap.

Be careful. October looks to be the stormiest of months, if we hold out until then. The market is overdue for a correction, which can be up to 20%. Given the distance we have come on thin volume, what may make this correction shocking is the speed with which it will come.

Watch the VIX.

We remain guardedly 'optimistic' on the markets for next year ONLY because of the Fed's and Treasury's willingness to continue to debase the dollar to cover the massive unrealized losses in the banks' portfolios, even as they return to manipulating markets in business as usual.

Inflation is good for financial assets, and we think another bubble is in the cards, at least for now given Obama's unwillingness to reform, unless some exogenous event or actor intervenes. The other troubling thing is the lack of vigor in the real economy. The stagnation in median real wages is strangling the middle class. There can be no resurgent economy without them.

As much of an outlier it might seem, it is possible that Bernanke and the Treasury might lead the US into a stagnation similar to Japan, but with stagflation, because of their policy errors driven by the distorting demands of an outsized and corrupting financial sector.

Wall Street is throwing buckets of money at Washington to fight even a moderate reform such as a financial 'consumer protection agency.' These fellows will never quit, until they are stopped. And it does not appear that Obama and his cronies have the traction or the fortitude to get the job done.

Until the banks are restrained, and the financial system is reformed, and balance is restored to the economy, there will be no sustained recovery.

Long Term Gold Chart Targets 1325

Someone asked for a long term chart in gold.

Projecting this leg in the gold bull market has been of keen interest to us on one dimension, since we do have some trading activity in our own account. However, on the long term for our core positions it is of no more interest now than it was when gold was trading at 550, 450, or even 250. Gold is in a bull market, and you never give up your core positions in a bull market. You can trade around them if you are an aggressive trader.

As an aside, to anyone who can read a chart and as you can plainly see for youself, gold is in an obvious bull market. If you are dealing with someone who says it is not then they can only a) be incapable of reading a chart, b) be blinded by a mistaken belief, or c) be talking their or someone else's book. There seem to be a few analysts, never bullish on gold in a spectacular bull market, working for major gold trading houses, that fit into this last category.

So, gold appears to be targeting somewhere just north of 1300 for this leg of its bull market. As it says on the chart, this is a LONG term projection, and it should therefore be expected to play out over the LONG term.

The lower bound on gold on these formations is higher than 925 so we would not expect gold to trade lower than that while these formations are 'working.'

Every bull market has its 'wall of worry.' Gold certainly has its own. Its price increases are being met with fierce opposition by four or five US Wall Street banks who are increasing their paper shorts against it to record numbers.

The game of Wall Street is misdirection and mischief using paper and the control of information. Yesterday's US retail sales data was a nice example of the partnership in deception between Wall Street and Washington to deceive the people for a variety of motives, some well-intentioned and some merely venal.

For this reason the Bankers and the statists hate gold, because it defies their control, and that of the money manipulators, those who would control nations and the many by controlling their money.

US Dollar Long Term Chart and a Scenario for Dollar Devaluation

Here is a long term chart of the US Dollar Index.

The recent rally in the US dollar completed at an almost perfect 38.2% fibonacci retracement from the 70.70 bottom. In part this rally was part of the short squeeze in eurodollars created by the collapse of US dollar financial CDO deposits held by customers at European banks.

The Dollar Rally and the Deflationary Imbalances in the US Dollar Holdings of Overseas Banks

The target for the active H&S top from 121 is still 65. The Key Pivot remains 81, the high end of band which had been the support level held by the dollar for almost 20 years. While the dollar is below 81 the H&S top is active and working.

We have been trying to calculate a new lower bound for the dollar decline from the charts. Reason tells us that at some point the dollar decline and economic imbalances may lead to a devaluation of the dollar.

People have asked, "How can the dollar be devalued? After all, there is no fixed standard."

Well, the dollar can decline considerably in purchasing power of real goods, as it has been doing for many years. However, the dollar can be devalued against its only true measure as a fiat currency: itself.

A formal devaluation of the dollar would be the discontinuance and reissue of the US dollar as a 'new dollar' with some preset exchange rate.

A likely figure would be 100:1, that is, 100 old dollars for 1 new dollar, possibly to be called 'the amero' as some have suggested or simply the 'dollar' as the US dollars currently in use will be withdrawn from circulation. If this does not provide sufficient relief it might have to be repeated.

This is what happened to the Russian rouble on January 1, 1998 after a debt default. Since it is unlikely that the US default will be preceded by a hyperinflation and protracted period of instability, we think the 1000:1 ratio of reissuance used by Russia might be too severe for the dollar, most especially because of its position as the reserve currency.

However, if the new dollar is to be at least partially backed by gold at the insistence of its international trading partners, then 1000:1 seems to 'work' more effectively given the US gold reserves and projected new money supply. This might be accomplished in phases, or with a dual currency regime.

It should also be noted that devaluation alone does not fix economic problems. It is a form of debt default, more severe than mere inflation. After its reissuance in 1998, for example, the new Russian rouble quickly lost approximately 70% of its value against the dollar because the devaluation had not been accompanied by significant economic reform. It has since recovered through painful adjustment.

You should not believe that this scenario is possible for the US dollar, yet. After all, if it was generally accepted and believed that it would happen, a severe value decline would already be underway.

Fiat currencies traffic in confidence. This things tend to play out over months and years, not days, unless there is a precipitating event usually caused by exterior events. Even though there had been a Russian debt default in the 1990's, the rouble had been troubled by serious inflation for many years before that.

But the warning signs are here if you have the eyes to see them, as unlikely as it might seem. It will appear to be a 'no-brainer' to a future generation. "What were they thinking? How could they have been so blind? What made them think that it could go on like that forever?"

However, we are approaching levels of economic imbalance and unserviceable debt levels that should bring at least a bit of a chill in the dollar bulls, as a warning that all things of the earth pass away, as they have done, and will always do. Some things, however, endure longer than others because they are universal, and not particular to a time or place.

In an upcoming blog, we will attempt to explain why the debt destruction in the US, with a moderating of the growth of some of the money supply measures, is not and will not result in a strengthening dollar. We do not expect any one who 'believes' in deflation as espoused by some of the dollar bulls to accept this. After all, they ignore the dollar devaluation that occurred in the depths of the Great Depression, when a devaluation really meant something radical as it was done against a gold standard.

Robert Reich on Moral Hazard and Obama's Failure

Robert Reich is a top Democrat, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, and a member of the Obama transition team.

In his recent blog he excoriates the Obama financial team's actions. And in doing so he echoes the things that have been said here, which we will take as some measure of validation from an intelligent public figure and top representative of the party in power.

Surely Obama must see that his Administration is a failure, beginning with his failure to maintain the promise of change, and address the need to reform the financial system.

Do something, Barack. Get a backbone, and do something for the country, and let the special interests, and the cronies of your cronies, be damned.

Start telling it like it is. Make this historic moment memorable, and not a shame.


The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later
Robert Reich
September 13, 2009

As he attempted to do with health care reform last week, the President is trying to breathe new life into financial reform. He's using the anniversary of the death of Lehman Brothers and the near-death experience of the rest of the Street, culminating with a $600 billion taxpayer financed bailout, to summon the political will for change. Yet the prospects seem dubious. As with health care reform, he has stood on the sidelines for months and allowed vested interests to frame the debate. Nor has he come up with a sufficiently bold or coherent set of reforms likely to change the way the Street does business, even if enacted.

Let's be clear: The Street today is up to the same tricks it was playing before its near-death experience. Derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, fancy-dance trading schemes, high-risk bets. “Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” says Goldman Sach's chief financial officer.

The only difference now is that the Street's biggest banks know for sure they'll be bailed out by the federal government if their bets turn sour -- which means even bigger bets and bigger bucks.

Meanwhile, the banks' gigantic pile of non-performing loans is also growing bigger, as more and more jobless Americans can't pay their mortgages, credit card bills, and car loans. So forget any new lending to Main Street. Small businesses still can't get loans. Even credit-worthy borrowers are having a hard time getting new mortgages.

The mega-bailout of Wall Street accomplished little. The only big winners have been top bank executives and traders, whose pay packages are once again in the stratosphere. Banks have been so eager to lure and keep top deal makers and traders they've even revived the practice of offering ironclad, multimillion-dollar payments – guaranteed no matter how the employee performs. Goldman Sachs is on course to hand out bonuses that could rival its record pre-meltdown paydays. In the second quarter this year it posted its fattest quarterly profit in its 140-year history, and earmarked $11.4 billion to compensate its happy campers. Which translates into about $770,000 per Goldman employee on average, just about what they earned at height of boom. Of course, top executives and traders will pocket much more.

Every other big bank feels it has to match Goldman's pay packages if it wants to hold on to its "talent." Citigroup, still on life-support courtesy of $45 billion from American taxpayers, has told the White House it needs to pay its twenty-five top executives an average of $10 million each this year, and award its best trader $100 million.

A few banks like Goldman have officially repaid their TARP money but look more closely and you'll find that every one of them is still on the public dole. Goldman won't repay taxpayers the $13 billion it never would have collected from AIG had we not kept AIG alive. (In one of the most blatant conflicts of interest in all of American history, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein attended the closed-door meeting last fall where then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who was formerly Goldman's CEO, and Tim Geithner, then at the New York Fed, made the decision to bail out AIG.) Meanwhile, Goldman is still depending on $28 billion in outstanding debt issued cheaply with the backing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Which means you and I are still indirectly funding Goldman's high-risk operations.

So will the President succeed on financial reform? I wish I could be optimistic. His milktoast list of proposed reforms is inadequate to the task, even if adopted. The Street's behavior since its bailout should be proof enough that halfway measures won't do. The basic function of commercial banking in our economic system -- linking savers to borrowers -- should never have been confused with the casino-like function of investment banking. Securitization, whereby loans are turned into securities traded around the world, has made lenders unaccountable for the risks they take on. The Glass-Steagall Act should be resurrected. Pension and 401 (k) plans, meanwhile, should never have been allowed to subject their beneficiaries to the risks that Wall Street gamblers routinely run. Put simply, the Street has been given too many opportunities to play too many games with other peoples' money.

But, like the health care industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. And with the Dow Jones Industrial Average trending upward again -- and the public's and the media's attention focused elsewhere, especially on health care -- it will be difficult to summon the same sense of urgency financial reform commanded six months ago.

Yet without substantial reform, the nation and the world will almost certainly be plunged into the same crisis or worse at some point in the not-too-distant future. Wall Street's major banks are already en route to their old, dangerous ways -- now made more dangerous by their sure knowledge that they are too big to fail.

"It has now become clear that this was no ordinary crash."

Here is an informative piece on the banking crisis in Iceland. The commentary was so well done that we are using it in lieu of our own commentary based on the article in the Daily Telegraph.

What we would like to point out is that in all banking collapses of this sort, fraud and duplicity are always at the heart of it, as larceny is in most great fortunes through history.

The Community Organizer-in-Chief is speaking to New York's Wall Street today, urging them to do the right thing for the country. He still sees himself as precipitating action in others, as a change agent, rather than organizing and leading the action at the forefront. Old habits die hard. He is not an outsider visiting this community. He leads the community. He's the man, now.

Actions speak louder than words. The words are that Wall Street is paying back the taxpayer money with a nice gain. No one seems to be talking about AIG, which is an enormous loss for the taxpayers at the moment well north of 170 billions, and the almost scandalous payments of 100 cents on the dollar that were made on dodgy contracts to the likes of Goldman Sachs that should have been put into default, or at best paid off at pennies on the dollar.

We still hear rumours of ugliness on the 'off balance sheet' portions of some of these big banks, even the ones held up as models of recovery.

So, when Obama chides the Wall Street wiseguys in stern terms to 'do the right thing,' one can forgive us if we hear, in echoes from the back of the room, "do this" and "get bent."

He may as well walk into the aftermath of a vicious bank robbery and say to the perps with cash still in hand, "Now you boys stop doing that this minute. This is the fifth time you have stolen money and endangered the lives of innocent people. You can keep the money, but you had better not do it again.

Sheriff Summers and Deputy Tim, who you know so well from drinking with them after hours at your clubs, will stop you if you do. And remember, Bennie the Bookie has his eye on you. By the way, Rahm says thanks for the gifts and remembrances, as always."

Action, Mr. Obama. Not words. One does not scold even white collar criminals into confessing, much less changing their ways, and warnings do not work when the perps feel that they most surely own you and the advisors around you, given the toothless gestures you are making towards reform.


The Daily Bell
Iceland: what ugly secrets are waiting to be exposed in the meltdown?
September 14, 2009

"Almost a year since the collapse of the Icelandic banks, the rotten nature of these financial corpses is slowly beginning to emerge. Iceland: what ugly secrets are waiting to be exposed in the meltdown? For months rumours of share-ramping, market manipulation, excessive loans to their owners and unusual transfers off-shore have been circling Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki, whose failure last October left 300,000 British customers unable to access their money. It has now become clear that this was no ordinary crash. Iceland's special investigation into "suspicions of criminal activity" at the three banks is likely to stretch from Reykjavik to London, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands. Eva Joly, the French-Norwegian MEP and fraud expert hired by Iceland and now working with the Serious Fraud Office, now believes it will be "the largest investigation in history of an economic and banking bank collapse". - Telegraph

One has to keep in mind that Iceland is a country of about 300,000 people. And yet the "suspicions of criminal activity" stemming from the collapse of one of the world's smallest central banks are likely to spread around the Western world. Here's some more from the article about such "suspicions" ...

When the banks were put into administration last October, experts believed that Iceland's banks had simply fallen prey to the global credit crisis. But Dr. Jon Danielsson, an Icelander who teaches economics at the London School of Economics, believes that while the timing of the crash was dictated by the global banking crisis, the scandal is unique among European financial institutions.

He believes the root of Iceland's problems that have now decimated its economy appear to have started when the government decided to privatize the banks in the early 1990s. "Iceland got its regulations from the EU, which was basically sound," he says. "But the government had no understanding of the dangers of banks or how to supervise them. They got into the hands of people who took risks to the highest possible degree."

Kaupthing fell into the clutches of the Gudmundsson brothers, Ágúst and Lydur, who made their fortunes building up the Bakkavor food manufacturing empire, which supplies hundreds of supermarkets in the UK. Their investment vehicle, Exista, owned 23% of the bank, counting Robert Tchenguiz, the London property entrepreneur as a board member.
Kaupthing's loan book, which was leaked on to the internet last week, shows that around one third, or €6bn (£5.1bn), of its €16bn corporate loan book was going to a small elite group of men connected to the bank's owners and management.

Several investigations into Kaupthing centre on share ramping, where the bank would allegedly give loans with no interest or security in order to buy shares in that same bank - boosting the share price.

Yes, much to be concerned about. But is Danielsson serious about these accusations? He believes that privatization is at the heart of the difficulties? We've heard exactly the opposite of course when it comes to American and British central banks. The Federal Reserve is said to function well (it doesn't) because it is in private hands and immune to political influence (it's not). It's a good sound bite, of course, to say a central bank functions well because it is private, or is well regulated because it is public. But it likely doesn't make any difference.

That's because the institution itself is fatally flawed. If the American or European central bank broke down, and investigations were held into the relationships, all holy hell would likely break loose. How can it be otherwise? These central banks are run by small groups of (mostly) men, who grow up with each other and go to the same clubs and run in the same social circles and have the same interests.

In the case of the Federal Reserve, the best of Goldman Sachs tend to matriculate to government work, and to believe that Goldman Sachs has not benefited from its relationships at the highest levels of Western government is likely naïve in the extreme.

According to Danielsson, the Iceland crisis is "unique among European financial institutions." In fact, we believe it is no such thing. If any one of these other institutions crashed, the "uniqueness" would turn out to be commonplace. The interwoven old boys network does not stop at the doors of central banks. Central banking IS an old boy's network. It is the best and biggest network of all. In this one, you actually get to print money, and if anyone asks you for an accounting, you simply claim that if you release too much information, you will destabilize this or that financial institution.

We think there is a reason that the Federal Reserve, for instance, is resisting the Congressional move for a thorough audit, and it has little to do with a professed concern for the destabilization of banking institutions. We believe, as with Iceland, that central banking is infested with private dealings in millions and even billions of dollars. How could it be otherwise?

Conclusion: Central banking is a franchise of the utmost power and authority, but the men who run it are neither priests nor eunuchs. They are merely human beings, and, after all, while power corrupts, infinite power corrupts infinitely. Only the market itself can guarantee a level playing field. A market-based gold and silver standard would do away with the suspicions that are rife when it comes central banking. The smallest central bank in the world is central to a financial scandal that threatens to engulf much of the West. What secrets must the larger banks hold?

Moral Hazard and Economic Donkeys

"It's almost as if the biggest credit bubble in history never occurred. Investors are increasingly convinced that a sustainable global recovery is emerging out of the wreckage. All praise to the central bankers for saving the world! I'm waiting till someone writes about the return of the Great Moderation and suggests Ben Bernanke is the new Maestro. Then I'll know the lunatics have taken over the madhouse...yet again." Albert Edwards, Société Générale

What Simon Johnson is describing in this essay attached below is moral hazard, the corruption of the capitalist system introduced by a Fed (the Economic Donkeys) that recklessly exercises a function as 'lender of last resort,' in conjunction with a political environment (less sophisticated Economic Donkeys) that can be politely described as being driven by 'regulatory capture' rather than the less euphemistic 'rampant corruption.'

Moral hazard is not a popular topic, on the left or on the right. When moral hazard was mentioned as a consideration in the bank bailouts proposed by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a popular liberal economist bombastically expounding with a blog (PLEBEWAG) went into a hissy fit of self-righteous indignation, condemning those who even think about things like 'moral hazard' as fundamentalist ethical Luddites.

The problem is that moral hazard is an ethical consideration, a restraint on the tools available for centralized financial engineering. This aversion to restraint is characteristic of neither the moderate right nor the left per se, but it does distinguish the statists from those who favor the individuals and 'market-based capitalism.'

What can one think about these things, when so many economists can get it so wrong, for so long, with such passionate intensity, and remain largely unapologetic and unchanged themselves, swearing allegiance to the power of financial engineering with just a little more power and purview? Hence the proposal to centralize regulation in the Fed, surely one of the most bizarre suggestions after a crisis caused by the Fed that one can imagine.

It is all part of the momentum of the status quo, those who enable a system at least in part because they believe it in as a first principle, benefit from it, even if they are not direct participants, or may only wish to be beneficiaries of the greater power and prestige of the State.

It is an essay worth reading. Here is a relevant excerpt.

Until the Banks are restrained, and the financial system reformed, and balance restored to the economy, there can be no sustained economic recovery.

Or anything resembling a return to the moral high ground or social justice.

"The real problem with our financial system is that our economic and political system work together to encourage excessive risk, and this risk in turn leads to cycles of prosperity and collapse. In 1998, a much smaller Lehman Brothers was placed in financial peril by the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis and failure of Long Term Capital Management, a major hedge fund. The Federal Reserve responded by lowering interest rates and other central banks followed suit. This reduced the cost of obtaining funds, effectively bailing out Lehman and other institutions in trouble.

As markets have grown to recognize how quick the Federal Reserve is to bail out institutions (and executives) in trouble, they naturally respond. In the 1990s, people talked about the “Greenspan Put” a term which derisively suggests that it is always safe to invest in risky assets, because the Federal Reserve is ready to bail out investors (a put is effectively a promise to buy an asset at a fixed price if you are unable to sell it to someone else at a higher price – this is a way to lock-in profits or limit losses on investments). However, in months following the collapse of Lehman, we learned that the “Bernanke Put” is even more valuable since Chairman Bernanke, alongside the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and central banks in much of the rest of the world, is prepared to take drastic measures to prevent asset prices from falling when there are risks of global collapse.

This policy of responding to the aftermath of bubbles, rather than addressing them before they get going, through tighter regulation, has become the mantra of most central banks. It is usually combined with fiscal policy stimulus and other measures to support the economy. Each time banks fail, by bailing the system out again, we teach our finance sector a lesson: you can safely take too much risk because, when you lose, the taxpayer will pick up the bill. We also send a simple message to creditors: it is safe to lend to Goldman Sachs, or Barclays Bank, because taxpayers and our nations’ savers are standing by to cover your losses. Rational bank executives and creditors respond as any person would: creditors lend to banks at low interest rates, and our banks gamble heavily hoping to make large profits. Such a system is destined to fail, but the party can run for a long time."

Economic Donkeys by Simon Johnson and Peter Boone

H&S Top and "Iron Cross" on Weekly Dollar Chart Targets 66

The weekly chart on the US Dollar Index has rather awful technicals, as it has dropped to a recent low, and set the 'iron cross' in the moving averages that is generally the hallmark of a sustained decline.

There is a massive Head & Shoulders formation that *should* preclude a rally over 81 if it is working, limiting any gains to a further 'right shoulder.'

The ultimate objective of this formation remains 66 for this leg of the large formation.

It is difficult to square this with a technical outlook that includes a major decline in the US equity indices, since the pairs have been running inversely, that is, dollar down, and stocks up.

Anything is possible, especially when the governments are actively and aggressively 'tinkering' with the markets. It is possible that the Fed monetizes sufficiently to reinflate an equity bubble, essentially whoring out the Dollar and the real economy for the sake of the financial or FIRE sector.

Signs of an Approaching Decline in US Equities That Could Be Quite Impressive

There is a strong correlation between this US equity rally and the Fed monetization of debt, which indicates a 'hot money' flow into US stocks but with thin volumes from a significant market bottom. This points to 'technical price trading' by the financial sector, also known was price manipulation, or trading stocks like commodities.

Continued heavy insider selling from those with the best forward view of the real economy is a clear sign of a top. No one can trust what the Fed or the Administration are saying about an economic recovery, as much now as ever. Obama's administration is no reform government.

This surprisingly robust rally in US Treasuries is remarkable given the decline in the US dollar, based in part on a strong yen and carry trades. The short end is obviously quantitative easing, with strong buying from Asian central banks dumping Agency debt but continuing to manipulate their currencies. 'Free trade' is an illusion.

The long end rally in Treasury suspect is likely interest rate manipulation by the US Fed and its central bank cronies. It has been a huge mistake to allow the Fed to perform the non-traditional printing that young Ben touted so proudly in his famous essay. Clever in the short term is too often tragic overall.

Gold and silver are surging as investors largely outside the US seek safety in harder assets.

There is also a community of small speculators outside the US which has been buying stocks on dollar weakness, to play an arbitrage with their own currencies. There is a hot money crowd in eastern Europe for example, and in Asia. And so far this year it has been working. At some point that door will close, quite hard, and many will be caught offsides and out of luck.

A dollar devaluation? Technically one cannot officially devalue the dollar per se because it has no official peg. The more appropriate term is debasement perhaps, and de facto default, but the effect is the same; a decline in purchasing power by the dollar vis a vis other monetary instruments. But for now we are in a monetary matrix, and the central banks and their minions can continue to play their game.

Besides being the hallmark of markets made sick by central bank and other official manipulation, these are signs that indicate that the 'smart money' is battening down the hatches for a very rough September and October in US equities as the pros hand off their latest Ponzi scheme to the public.

We will not be surprised if there is a significant decline, first to a pullback of about 7 to 10 percent. Then we will see if the market can rally on renewed dollar devaluation and if not, then another major slide to test lower levels.

If there is an 'event' the pros will dump the market bids quite hard, perhaps precipitously. It is always easier to complete a market wash and rinse when a scapegoat is available.

Obviously no one can predict the future with certainty, and even within clearer trends the actual timeframes are always most difficult if barely possible when the markets are dominated by computer manipulation. But the auspices are ominous indeed, and we are proceeding with caution.

Until the banks are restrained, and the financial system is reformed, and the economy is brought back into balance, there can be no sustained US recovery.

CNN Money
Insiders sell like there's no tomorrow
By Colin Barr, senior writer
September 11, 2009: 7:27 AM ET

Corporate officers and directors were buying stock when the market hit bottom. What does it say that they're selling now?

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Can hundreds of stock-selling insiders be wrong?

The stock market has mounted an historic rally since it hit a low in March. The S&P 500 is up 55%, as U.S. job losses have slowed and credit markets have stabilized.

But against that improving backdrop, one indicator has turned distinctly bearish: Corporate officers and directors have been selling shares at a pace last seen just before the onset of the subprime malaise two years ago.

While a wave of insider selling doesn't necessarily foretell a stock market downturn, it suggests that those with the first read on business trends don't believe current stock prices are justified by economic fundamentals.

"It's not a very complicated story," said Charles Biderman, who runs market research firm Trim Tabs. "Insiders know better than you and me. If prices are too high, they sell."

Biderman, who says there were $31 worth of insider stock sales in August for every $1 of insider buys, isn't the only one who has taken note. Ben Silverman, director of research at the InsiderScore.com web site that tracks trading action, said insiders are selling at their most aggressive clip since the summer of 2007.

Silverman said the "orgy of selling" is noteworthy because corporate insiders were aggressive buyers of the market's spring dip. The S&P 500 dropped as low as 666 in early March before the recent rally took it back above 1,000.

"That was a great call," Silverman said. "They were buying when prices were low, so it makes sense to look at what they're doing now that prices are higher..."

Obama to Make A "Major Address on the Financial Crisis" On Monday

This news has appeared on the Agence France-Presse (hat tip Michel Proulx) and I have translated this into English for now.

One has to wonder if the great Speech Organizer will actually say anything that is worthy of the adjective, "major."

Someone has possibly told him that if he makes speeches often, it will reassure the people of his country, in the manner of Franklin Roosevelt's "fireside chats" from the 1930's.

This sort of remedy wears thin quickly if one has nothing of substance or new to say. Roosevelt had a great flair for oratory, but first and foremost he was a man of substance and of action, like him or not. He was an experienced governor, and knew how to lead by action and example, as well as by words.

It also appears that he wishes to 'send a message' to the G20 about their upcoming meeting at the end of September. He is setting the tone, as he most recently did before the Congress with regard to his health care reforms.

President Obama may seem to many to be a man only of words, of rhetoric, treading lightly on the status quo especially when dealing with the corporate funders of his political party, the banks and the health corporations. This is a great obstacle to his Presidency.

He has perhaps another six months to change this perception, or deliver his Party to a serious setback in the 2010 mid-term elections.

In the meanwhile, gold and silver appear to be an attractive hedge against incompetence.


Agence France-Presse
Discours "majeur" d'Obama sur la crise financière lundi
Publié le 10 septembre 2009 à 20h44

(translation into English)

U.S. President Barack Obama will deliver a speech on this coming Monday, described as "major" by the White House, on the financial crisis, one year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and ten days before the G20 summit, his administration announced Thursday.

It will address the strong measures that his administration has taken to move the economy from the abyss, its commitment to reducing the role of government after their recent interventions in the financial sector, and the need for the United States and the international community to prevent the repetition of such a crisis...

The developed countries and major emerging economies are striving to overcome their differences and agree on measures to prevent a repetition of financial crises, and also to appease those who are outraged by the excesses of the financial sector.

The G20 leaders will be in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September. Mr. Obama intends to advance the proposal for new "rules of conduct" in finance.

With the prospect of the end of the recession, Mr. Obama will also put the fight against unemployment at the center of their discussions.

Japan: The Triumph of Crony Corporatism Over the Individual

Japanese officials sometimes have the endearing quality of coming out and openly saying what they are doing, or intend to do, in support of dodgy political and financial arrangements that would make a Wall Street banker blush, if they are still capable of such an act of modesty.

The former Japanese Central Banker Toshiro Muto said in March that '"in principle equity values should be set by the market and authorities should avoid manipulating prices because doing so would hurt the stock market’s reputation."

Apparently in this case 'in principle' means 'theoretically, as is convenient," because Mr. Muto goes on to recommend that the Japanese Central Bank and government throw principles aside and buy stocks to support the Japanese banking cartel, which has crippled that country for the past fifteen to twenty years.

Notice how in his talk, Muto says that this arrangement will be temporary, until Japan can export its way out of its financial difficulties.

The challenge might be that most of the countries intend to 'export' their way out of their central bank created economic difficulties. China and India have already passed on the notion of becoming mass importers in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps the fate of the world rests on the ability of the nations of Africa and Polynesia to obtain the suitable credit ratings and FICO scores to become mass consumers with debts that can not possibly ever be repaid, à la mode Amerique? Is South America willing to once again mortgage its future for the sake of the financiers? I am sure that any appropriate arrangements can be made by the Central Banks with the target nations' ruling elites.

Japan is one of the worst examples of crony capitalism in the world. Its ruling LDP party has been a disgraceful example of serving private corporate interests, and acting without honor, honesty, and integrity.

Why doesn't the Bank of Japan just give the money to the banks, and let them buy stocks higher using leverage in the futures index markets like the Anglo-American crony capitalists? This is considered much more respectful of the market driven economy in the West.

"As the boom developed, the big men became more and more omnipotent in the popular or at least the speculative view... the big men decided to put the market up, and even some serious scholars have been inclined to think that a concerted move catalyzed this upsurge." J. K. Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929

After all, as the industrialist, financier, and Democratic National Chairman John Jacob Raskob observed in August 1929, "Everybody ought to be rich." And so for a time they were, seemingly all powerful, invincible, as gods.

And the abyss swallowed them all. And then the descent into madness in Asia, Africa, the Mideast, and in Europe: and finally a world in flames. Monstrous actions done in the name of economic necessity, room for growth, fuel for industry, a new order for the ages, and at all times the will to power of the few. All the gods of greed.

And at last, the twilight of the gods. Götterdämmerung. Until the old gods rise again.

And so here we are, trembling at the veil.

(Note: this news piece below is not current. It is from earlier this year. It demonstrates the 'roots' of the rallies which we are seeing today in the world bourses. They are an illusion.)

Bloomberg
Japan May Need to Buy Stocks, Ex-BOJ Deputy Muto Says
By Mayumi Otsuma

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Former Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Toshiro Muto said the government and the central bank may need to buy shares temporarily to support the country’s ailing stock market.

When global equities plunge, “it’s very meaningful for the government’s share-buying institution and the Bank of Japan to buy stocks to support the market,” Muto said at a forum co- hosted by Bloomberg News in Tokyo today. “However, such purchases cannot last forever and should be justified only as a tool to avert a crisis.”

The Nikkei 225 Stock Average is at a 26-year low, eroding banks’ capital and making them reluctant to lend. Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano said today that the government has a “strong will” to combat the credit squeeze resulting from the stock-market slump.

Muto, currently head of the Daiwa Institute of Research, added that "in principle" equity values should be set by the market and authorities should avoid manipulating prices because doing so would hurt the stock market’s reputation.

The government has already allocated 20 trillion yen ($203 billion) and the Bank of Japan has set aside 1 trillion yen to buy shares owned by banks. Yosano last month ordered lawmakers within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to study ways to bolster stocks, including the feasibility of the government directly purchasing equities in the market.

Keidanren’s Plea

Keidanren, Japan’s largest business lobby, yesterday called on the government to allow a public entity to sell state-backed bonds and funnel the proceeds into the flagging stock market.

The Nikkei slid 0.4 percent today to 7,054.98, the lowest since October 1982, on concern shrinking global demand and rising fuel prices will weigh on company earnings.

An unprecedented drop in exports since last quarter has forced Japanese manufacturers to cut production at a record pace and fire thousands of workers. The central bank forecasts the economy will shrink 2 percent in the year starting April 1, the worst in 60 years.

Muto said exports will drive Japan’s eventual recovery. Deflationary risks outweigh concerns about inflation in the world’s second-largest economy, he added.

Muto served as the central bank’s deputy chief for five years following a 37-year career at Finance Ministry. He was the government’s first choice to succeed Toshihiko Fukui as governor last year, only to be rejected by the opposition- controlled upper house, which said his stint at the ministry may hamper the bank’s independence.

Barrick Capitulates

Barrick Gold and their bullion bank partner J.P. Morgan were the target of lawsuits by the gold bulls, most recently Blanchard and Company, for price manipulation through the use of forward sales in their hedge book. The contention was that the selling was being used to manipulate the price of gold.

Barrick's initial defense was that if they were acting in conjunction with the central banks, they were therefore immune from prosecution since the central banks are immune from prosecution. Details of that story are here. The public document that Blanchard had put forward was shocking in its implications indeed, and can be seen here.

Almost as shocking as the complete lack of interest and follow up in such a potential scandal by the financial community, market regulators, and the media.

One has to wonder what Barrick's management now sees in the precious metal markets, in order to accept this significant shareholder dilution to take down those fixed price contracts now.

On a related note, one of the current largest holders of the gold ETF (GLD) is now reported to be J.P Morgan, which is also a holder of one of the largest short gold positions on the COMEX. There was a bit of a row last year when it was revealed that the rules of the exchange would allow holders of short gold positions to make delivery good in, wait for it, the GLD ETF rather than in physical bullion.

In an ideal, efficient market there would have been transparency and symmetric disclosure of information under the auspices of the CFTC and the SEC, rather than cross accusations and lawsuits. The exact details of what had transpired are not known as the Blanchard lawsuit was settled.

The CFTC seems to be finally willing to act to place position limits on some of the commodity markets, such as oil, that have been the subject of speculative manipulation in recent years. Perhaps some day this will also include other reforms, and will include all the commodity markets.

How sweet it must be for the 'gold bugs' who had repeatedly cautioned Barrick's management on their use of hedges and fixed priced arrangement with the bullion banks.

Although for a large shareholder or group of shareholders in Barrick, one would think that a much more complete disclosure of the nature of this loss and the counter parties would be expected. How involved was J. P. Morgan? Was the Federal Reserve or any other central bank an actual counterparty or collaborator as Barrick apparently claimed in court in 2003? Does this have anything to do with China's recent position on derivatives obligations held by its State Owned Enterprises?

It does sound like there is now a Barrick put under the price of gold, in addition to the China put, that is, a floor under the price of the metal in the front month or spot markets.

In these opaque markets one can still only wonder what is really going on behind the scenes, in a number of financial arrangements. Yes we can.

Reuters
Barrick to Sell $3 Billion in Stock to Buy Back Hedges
By Cameron French
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

TORONTO -- Barrick Gold, the world's biggest gold producer, said on Tuesday it will issue $3 billion in stock and use the proceeds to buy back all of its fixed-price gold hedges and a portion of its floating hedges.

Barrick will take a $5.6 billion charge on its third-quarter earnings as a result of the move.

During times of weak prices, gold miners often sell a portion of their future production to protect, or hedge, against the possibility that prices will fall.

When prices rise, as they have done since 2001, the company suffers because value of the future production they've sold does not increase with the gold price. (The central banks of the world have turned from net sellers to buyers of gold this year, led by the BRIC countries who wish to hedge their reserves against a declining dollar - Jesse)

"The gold hedge book has been a particular concern among our shareholders and the broader market, which we believe has obscured the many positive developments within the company," Barrick Chief Executive Aaron Regent said in a statement.

Barrick stopped hedging, or forward-selling, its gold in 2003.

It exited its production hedge book two years ago, and the company has faced repeated questions from analysts and shareholders since then about its plans for the remaining 9.5 million ounces it had hedged to finance projects.

The equity deal comes as a resurgent gold price and healing credit markets have prompted investors to snap up gold stocks, bullion and equity.

The metal's price hovered just below $1,000 an ounce on Tuesday.

Barrick will issue 81.2 million shares at $36.95 a share, a 6 percent discount to the stock's New York closing price of $39.30 on Tuesday.

The company will use $1.9 billion of the proceeds to eliminate all of its fixed-price gold contracts -- on which the company effectively lost money every time the gold price rose -- by purchasing gold on the open market and delivering it into the contracts.

It will use about $1 billion to eliminate some of its floating spot price contracts. (Are they buying them out from the counterparties? Is J. P. Morgan one of them? - Jesse)

After the deal, Barrick will still hold floating hedges with a negative mark-to-market value of $2.7 billion, but the $5.6 billion charge will remove it from the balance sheet. (It sound as if they are writing them off as a loss - Jesse)

Bill O'Neill, a partner at LOGIC Advisors in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, said the deal would not likely have a material impact on the gold market. (Off the cuff, the Barrick statement implies that they will be purchasing 4% of total world production in the open market for bullion which is already tight at these prices in addition to taking an enormous amount of forward selling off the market. Unless, of course, they can take delivery directly from existing reserves, such as from the Fed via the IMF. - Jesse)

US Dollar Seasonality

Rough seas ahead for Uncle Buck.



Chart Courtesy of ContraryInvestor.com

Fed: Consumer Credit Contracted at an annual rate of 10 1/2 Percent

Federal Reserve G.19 Report

Consumer credit decreased at an annual rate of 10-1/2 percent in July 2009.

Revolving credit decreased at an annual rate of 8 percent, and
nonrevolving credit decreased at an annual rate of 11-3/4 percent.

Cuomo: Bank of America Officials May Be Charged

The charges center around the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, and the lack of disclosure regarding losses, and the accelerated bonuses paid to Merrill.

Cuomo also cites their indiscriminate use of attorney - client privilege to mask wrongdoing.

Cuomo's action is a slap at the SEC which has crafted a settlement with the Bank, which has been challenged repeatedly by the Judge as a wristslap, defying commen sense and basic justice.

This comes as the SEC faces further charges of a whitewash of their involvement with the Madoff Ponzi scheme scandal, and the lack of discovery of the fate of the billions which Madoff took from investors.

Reminds one of the Spitzer actions as the New York Attorney General in which he brought Wall Street to judgement and a settlement on its scandals regarding analysts improper rating of stocks from the tech bubble. There had been repeated attempts by the federal regulators to short circuit Spitzer.

Reuters
UPDATE 1-NY's Cuomo may charge BofA execs over Merrill
Tue Sep 8, 2009 3:05pm EDT

NEW YORK, Sept 8 (Reuters) - New York's attorney general threatened on Tuesday to file charges against top executives of Bank of America Corp over the disclosure of details regarding bonuses it authorized to Merrill Lynch & Co employees before the company's merger.

Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general, made the threat as U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff considers whether to approve the bank's $33 million civil settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about the disclosures.

The judge has rejected the settlement twice, and Bank of America and the SEC are expected to made new submissions in the matter by Wednesday.

Cuomo accused Bank of America of using a defense of attorney-client privilege to explain why it should not release more information about who authorized the payment of billions of dollars of bonuses.

"We cannot simply accept Bank of America's officers' naked assertions that they sought and relief on advice of counsel in good faith, and that, therefore, they should not be charged," Cuomo wrote in a letter to the bank's lawyer.

He gave the bank until Sept 14 to provide more information.

Bank of America did not immediately return a call seeking comment. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Additional reporting by Elinor Comlay and Grant McCool; Editing by Ted Kerr)

China Admonishes US Monetization, Sees a Hard Fall for the Dollar Over Time

China is saying many things which are true.

They are also omitting many things that are key to the cause of our financial problems. They bought the silence of a succession of US political administrations over their blatant currency manipulation in support of trade subsidies, including the outright contributions to Clinton and Gore, and the cronyism with Bush.

China is a significant part of the problem, and like so many dogs that Wall Street helps to set up to further their gains, this one refuses to wag its tail on command.

The blowback on the US dollar will be significant.

Telegraph UK
China alarmed by US money printing
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Cernobbio, Italy
9:06PM BST 06 Sep 2009

The US Federal Reserve's policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.

Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China's green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed's recourse to "credit easing".

"We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again," he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.

"If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies," he said. (China is already a strong buyer in the precious metals markets, and is encouraging its citizens to buy gold and silver as well - Jesse)

China's reserves are more than – $2 trillion, the world's largest.

"Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not to stimulate the markets," he added. (The short interest being held by three or four US banks is grown remarkably large. As Barrick gold claimed in their lawsuit with JP Morgan by Blanchard, they are being backstopped by the US government. Larry Summers has been a long time proponent of controlling the price of gold to influence longer term interest rates. See his paper on Gibson's Paradox. Greenspan understood the same relationship all too well, as does Bernanke. - Jesse)

The comments suggest that China has become the driving force in the gold market and can be counted on to buy whenever there is a price dip, putting a floor under any correction. (The other central banks of the world have put a significant halt to their own selling, now realizing that the US Federal Reserve and Treasury are fighting a losing battle. - Jesse)

Mr Cheng said the Fed's loose monetary policy was stoking an unstable asset boom in China. "If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise. (How about releasing the peg to the US dollar and allowing the yuan to appreciate, dampening your exports, Uncle Cheng? Along with encouraging domestic consumption and higher wages. - Jesse)

"Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down." (Apparently the Chinese do not lie to their people yet about the true state of their economy. Greenspan and Geithner have much to teach them. - Jesse)

Mr Cheng said China had learned from the West that it is a mistake for central banks to target retail price inflation and take their eye off assets.

"This is where Greenspan went wrong from 2000 to 2004," he said. "He thought everything was alright because inflation was low, but assets absorbed the liquidity." (He didn't go wrong. He did not care. He was willfully blind. He was brought in to the banking ponzi scheme in 1996 - Jesse)

Mr Cheng said China had lost 20m jobs as a result of the crisis and advised the West not to over-estimate the role that his country can play in global recovery. (We should have NO illusion about China doing anything to promote imports and growth for anyone but themselves, ever. It is not a free market, it is a command economy with a strong mercantilist bent. - Jesse)

China's task is to switch from export dependency to internal consumption, but that requires a "change in the ideology of the Chinese people" to discourage excess saving. "This is very difficult". (No it is not. It is hard because the Chinese elites are afraid to lose control of the country to a growing merchant and middle class. - Jesse)

Mr Cheng said the root cause of global imbalances is spending patterns in US (and UK) and China. (One of the root causes was the devaluation of the Chinese yuan in the mid-1990's, and the allowance thereafter of China into most favored nation trading status with the US after making considerable contributions to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, through the Chinese military. Remember that scandal? - Jesse)

"The US spends tomorrow's money today," he said. "We Chinese spend today's money tomorrow. That's why we have this financial crisis...."

(Perhaps it is more correct to say that we have this crisis because statist governments and crony capitalists continually interfere with market mechanisms, creating unintended consequences and downtream crises that are growing increasingly severe and systemically threatening. - Jesse)

The Will to Power and Its Followers in the Socially Immature

"I am afraid we may have, in the near future, friendly fascism. And I do not use the term lightly. I grew up under fascism, in Franco’s Spain, and if nothing else, I recognize fascism when I see it. And we are seeing a growing fascism with a working-class base in the U.S. This is why we cannot afford to see Obama fail. But his staff and advisors are doing a remarkable job to achieve this. Ideologues such as chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel (who, when a congressman, was the most highly funded by Wall Street) and his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel (who did indeed write that old people should have a lower priority for health care spending) are leading the country along a wrong path."

Vincente Navarro, Obama's Mistakes in Health Care Reform

Vincent Navarro writes an amazingly insightful political analysis of health care reform and the Obama Adminstration. This is as we would expect, since Navarro, is an M.D., Ph.D., and professor of Health Policy at The Johns Hopkins University and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Services.

But then he goes on to end his essay with this remarkably bad prescription.

"Given this reality, it seems to me that the role of the left is to initiate a program of social political agitation and rebellion (I applaud the health professionals who disrupted the meetings of the Senate Finance Committee), following the tactics of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is wrong to expect and hope that the Obama administration will change. Without pressure and agitation, not much will be done."

The Will to Power has a bewitching siren call. It offers simple solutions to complex problems. It provokes the cycle of problem - reaction - solution, and the eye for an eye approach that 'makes the whole world blind.'

"Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority." James A. C. Brown

And yet, like most dark powers, it decimates and destroys who pick up the sword, and lays waste to them, their country, and their children.

This is the lesson of history, the abyss of madness into which a great leader can bring a nation once it loses its sense of proportion, that people in their passionate desire for power often forget.