Diminishing Returns

The carry trade continued to unwind last week. The Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and the euro have been used as funding currencies, due to their low or negative interest rates, were at the head of the pack. Market participants bought those currencies last week in order to exit their trades. The unwinding of the carry trade caused excessive volatility in financial markets. However, signs of stabilization in the equity markets were apparent in Friday’s price action. This was also reflected in the currency markets as the funding currency stopped rising and actually fell on Friday – perhaps signalling that the carry trade unwind had run its course, for now. We will know for sure as the new week opens and markets in most of Asia reopen after being closed for most of last week due to holidays.

It has been an extraordinary start to 2016. For the first couple of weeks the market’s anxiety revolved around the declines in the stock market and currency of China. It quickly changed to the oversupply of crude and its falling price. Then the market’s obsession turned to fears that the US economy was entering a recession. Before that obsession faded, along came the obsession of third party risk and troubled banks.

The financial sector is down about 15% year to date but Deutsche Bank is down more than 35% due to potential issues with its derivatives portfolio and its capital structure. Deutsche responded to the investor’s loss of confidence with a plan to back $5.4B in debt. The plan is so desperate it will even start buying back debt that was issued less than six weeks ago. Where have we seen this before? You got it – Lehman Brother in 2008. I guess we should have seen this coming back in June 2015 when the bank’s co-CEO, Anshu Jain and Jürgen Fitschen, abruptly resigned. We are not suggesting that this is 2008 all over again. However, sentiment has definitely changed since the Fed’s December rate hike as evidenced by the unwinding of carry trades.

Last week, Fed Chair Janet Yellen delivered a relatively upbeat assessment to the Senate Banking Committee. “A lot has happened” since December, when the Fed talked about raising rates 4 times in 2016 to kick off three years of sequential rate hikes, Yellen acknowledged. When asked about the risk of a recession, she responded that anything is possible but “expansions don’t die of old age.” She made clear that Fed officials were still debating when, not whether, they should raise rates again. She went on to play down the possibility that the Fed would seek to provide new stimulus by imposing negative interest rates. However, she refused to take negative interest rates off the table.

What we have here is a difference of opinion between the market and the central bank. The Fed expects the economy to continue to perform while it administers additional interest rate hikes; while investors expect the slowdown in the global economy will force the Fed to change course. The market is currently pricing in about an 8% chance that the Fed will lower rates by the end of 2016, compared with a 4% chance it will raise them, according to overnight-indexed swaps data compiled by Bloomberg.

Gold’s 16.76% rise year to date seems to reflect investors’ angst that central banks are out of ammo. The popular finance blog, Zero Hedge, recently put out a missive promoting that notion. They suggested that 8 years of monetary easing comprised of 637 collective rate cuts, $12.3 trillion in global quantitative easing, and with $8.3tn of global government debt currently yielding 0% or less

have been a “quantitative failure.” They insist that central banks have failed to revive the global economy and that every new measure yields less and less. They may be correct but we don’t think that central banks will stop. They continue to tell us that they have more tools in their tool box and we don’t doubt them – in fact, Ben Bernanke once talked about dropping money out of a helicopter. One thing that we are sure of is that every new tool used by central banks will lead to a corresponding move higher in the price of gold. Why you ask? – because Gold is the only currency that central bank can’t debase (create out of thin air).

The Greatest Show on Earth

Wow, what a volatile week in the markets! Black Monday 2015 kicked off violent moves in stocks and currencies. Stock markets managed to recover all of its losses and even finished the week higher in some cases. Unfortunately, that can’t be said about the currency markets as the yen and the USD outperformed the rest of the field as panic caused wild swings in currencies. The Americans pointed the figure at the Chinese for the cause of the sell off – the Chinese government failed attempt to support their equity markets followed by an unexpected devaluation of their currency. The Chinese retort was that stocks have moved sideways since the US Fed stopped QE in November and that the speculation around the Fed’s next move finally hit caused a panic. Who’s right? We happen to think that both sides are correct. Volatility always occurs at the end of a trend and the beginning of a new one. Market participants are nervous because of the two powerful and opposing threats to growth and stability – the risk of a deflationary slump if China buckles and the emerging market crisis turns systemic; versus the risk that central banks could fall behind the curve and leave too much stimulus in their own economies.

We think that most of you are by now familiar with the market turbulence caused by the threat of an interest rate hike by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The prospect of the Fed’s first rate hike since 2006 has fuelled growing fear of renewed volatility in emerging economies’ currency, bond, and stock markets. The concern is that rising interest rates will lead to a rising USD which will wreak havoc among emerging markets’ governments, financial institutions, corporations, and even households because they all have borrowed trillions of USDs and rising interest rates and a rising USD will cause debt servicing costs to rise.

Now imagine the pressure on currencies of oil producing countries. Most of these countries peg their local currency to the USD and plummeting oil prices are straining government budgets. Earlier this month, Kazakhstan decided to give up its peg and switched to a free float. This move caused Kazakhstan’s tenge to plunge a record 23% in one day, but it freed it from burning through its reserves in order to prop up its currency. Kazakhstan’s Prime Minister Karim Massimov told Bloomberg that in the new era of low oil prices “most of the oil-producing countries will go into the free-floating regime, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.” Indeed, expectations have grown after Fitch cut Saudi Arabia’s outlook to negative from stable last Friday. Fitch noted that the twin fiscal shocks of lower oil prices and increased spending under new Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud will cause the budget deficit to widen to 14.4% of GDP this year. The budget is sure to rise on news that Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen on Friday.

With government budgets of emerging markets and oil producers under stress, these countries have had to rely on the selling of their reserves mainly by way of selling US Treasury’s. Speaking of selling Treasury’s, according to Societé Generale SA, the central bank of China has likely sold somewhere on the order of $100 billion in US Treasury’s in the past two weeks alone in open FX operations in order to slow down the fall of the yuan after it devalued its currency earlier in the month.

On the surface, this seems harmless. But in reality, it is a major headache for the USD and the U.S. with multiple ramifications. First, if these countries are selling US Treasury’s then they are not buying. This begs the question of who will step in to fund U.S. deficits? Second, the selling alone could cause yields to increase. If yields break above the trend line on the chart of 10-Year US Treasury yield it would signal that major central bank selling is overwhelming the buyers. This would cause the Fed to ease. Ironic isn’t it? A Fed rate hike would increase the stress on emerging market and oil producing countries, which in turn would cause them to tap their reserves by selling US Treasury’s, causing bond yields to rise and triggering a monetary policy reversal by the Fed, possibly in the form of QE4.

We Are Asking Too Much of the Federal Reserve

A well written article is making the rounds in the blogosphere of financial and political pages alike by Robert Kuttner who is co-founder and co-editor of ‘The American Prospect'. It’s worth a read and re-printed below.

There has been obsessive chatter about whether the Federal Reserve will, or should, raise interest rates this fall. At the Fed's annual end-of-summer gabfest at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the issue was topic A. Advocates of a rate hike make the following claims:
Very low rates were necessary when the economy was deep in recession. Now, with growth up and unemployment down, the near-zero rates are creating speculative bubbles. They are not really stimulating the economy much, as corporations put cash into stock buybacks and bankers park spare money at the Fed itself. So, let's get on with a more normal borrowing rate.

Opponents of a rate hike counter that the economy is a lot weaker than it looks. Wages are going nowhere. A lot of the jobs that have pushed down the nominal employment rate are lousy jobs. China's economy has just hit a big wall, which will slow down global growth.

Raising rates will increase consumer and business costs across the economy – everything from home mortgages to credit cards to construction loans. There will come a time to raise rates, but we are not there yet. If anything, the Fed should find new ways to get money out into the real economy.

The Fed is famous for raising rates prematurely, seeing ghosts of inflation. But there is no inflation on the horizon -- the bigger worry is deflation. In fact, the inflation rate is well below the Fed's own target of two percent. And the Fed is the only game in town. On balance, I think the opponents of a rate hike have the better argument. But consider for a moment that last assumption -- that the Fed is the only game in town.

The larger issue, which is getting submerged in the great debate about raising rates, is that the Fed should not be the only game in town.

Normally, in a soft economy, the government would be using fiscal as well as monetary policy. But because of the obsession with deficit reduction -- unfortunately shared by the Obama Administration (remember the Bowles-Simpson Commission?) – fiscal stimulus today is off the table; worse, deficit-reduction is contractionary. In plain English, prolonged deficit-cutting slows down growth.