An interesting article from the most recent CFA Institute Magazine
Saturday, October 12, 2013
The Volatility of Volatility
An interesting article from the most recent CFA Institute Magazine
Pages
Pages
The Dollar Losing Reserve Currency Status
Via the Mises Institute and authored by Patrick Barron
We use the term “reserve currency” when referring to the common use of the dollar by other countries when settling their international trade accounts. For example, if Canada buys goods from China, it may pay China in US dollars rather than Canadian dollars, and vice versa. However, the foundation from which the term originated no longer exists, and today the dollar is called a “reserve currency” simply because foreign countries hold it in great quantity to facilitate trade.
The first reserve currency was the British pound sterling. Because the pound was “good as gold,” many countries found it more convenient to hold pounds rather than gold itself during the age of the gold standard. The world’s great trading nations settled their trade in gold, but they might hold pounds rather than gold, with the confidence that the Bank of England would hand over the gold at a fixed exchange rate upon presentment. Toward the end of World War II the US dollar was given this status by international treaty following the Bretton Woods Agreement. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed with the express purpose of monitoring the Federal Reserve’s commitment to Bretton Woods by ensuring that the Fed did not inflate the dollar and stood ready to exchange dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. Thusly, countries had confidence that their dollars held for trading purposes were as “good as gold,” as had been the Pound Sterling at one time.
However, the Fed did not maintain its commitment to the Bretton Woods Agreement and the IMF did not attempt to force it to hold enough gold to honor all its outstanding currency in gold at $35 per ounce. The Fed was called to account in the late 1960s, first by France and then by others, until its gold reserves were so low that it had no choice but to revalue the dollar at some higher exchange rate or abrogate its responsibilities to honor dollars for gold entirely. To it everlasting shame, the US chose the latter and “went off the gold standard” in September 1971.
Nevertheless, the dollar was still held by the great trading nations, because it still performed the useful function of settling international trading accounts. There was no other currency that could match the dollar, despite the fact that it was “delinked” from gold.
There are two characteristics of a currency that make it useful in international trade: one, it is issued by a large trading nation itself, and, two, the currency holds its value vis-à-vis other commodities over time. These two factors create a demand for holding a currency in reserve. Although the dollar was being inflated by the Fed, thusly losing its value vis-à-vis other commodities over time, there was no real competition. The German Deutsche mark held its value better, but German trade was a fraction of US trade, meaning that holders of marks would find less to buy in Germany than holders of dollars would find in the US. So demand for the mark was lower than demand for the dollar. Of course, psychological factors entered the demand for dollars, too, since the US was seen as the military protector of all the Western nations against the communist countries for much of the post-war period.
Today we are seeing the beginnings of a change. The Fed has been inflating the dollar massively, reducing its purchasing power in relation to other commodities, causing many of the world’s great trading nations to use other monies upon occasion. I have it on good authority, for example, that DuPont settles many of its international accounts in Chinese yuan and European euros. There may be other currencies that are in demand for trade settlement by other international companies as well. In spite of all this, one factor that has helped the dollar retain its reserve currency demand is that the other currencies have been inflated, too. For example, Japan has inflated the yen to a greater extent than the dollar in its foolish attempt to revive its stagnant economy by cheapening its currency. So the monetary destruction disease is not limited to the US alone.
The dollar is very susceptible to losing its vaunted reserve currency position by the first major trading country that stops inflating its currency. There is evidence that China understands what is at stake; it has increased its gold holdings and has instituted controls to prevent gold from leaving China. Should the world’s second largest economy and one of the world’s greatest trading nations tie its currency to gold, demand for the yuan would increase and demand for the dollar would decrease. In practical terms this means that the world’s great trading nations would reduce their holdings of dollars, and dollars held overseas would flow back into the US economy, causing prices to increase. How much would they increase? It is hard to say, but keep in mind that there is an equal amount of dollars held outside the US as inside the US.
President Obama’s imminent appointment of career bureaucrat Janice Yellen as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is evidence that the US policy of continuing to cheapen the dollar via Quantitative Easing will continue. Her appointment increases the likelihood that demand for dollars will decline even further, raising the likelihood of much higher prices in America as demand by trading nations to hold other currencies as reserves for trade settlement increase. Perhaps only such non-coercive pressure from a sovereign country like China can wake up the Fed to the consequences of its actions and force it to end its Quantitative Easing policy.
We use the term “reserve currency” when referring to the common use of the dollar by other countries when settling their international trade accounts. For example, if Canada buys goods from China, it may pay China in US dollars rather than Canadian dollars, and vice versa. However, the foundation from which the term originated no longer exists, and today the dollar is called a “reserve currency” simply because foreign countries hold it in great quantity to facilitate trade.
The first reserve currency was the British pound sterling. Because the pound was “good as gold,” many countries found it more convenient to hold pounds rather than gold itself during the age of the gold standard. The world’s great trading nations settled their trade in gold, but they might hold pounds rather than gold, with the confidence that the Bank of England would hand over the gold at a fixed exchange rate upon presentment. Toward the end of World War II the US dollar was given this status by international treaty following the Bretton Woods Agreement. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed with the express purpose of monitoring the Federal Reserve’s commitment to Bretton Woods by ensuring that the Fed did not inflate the dollar and stood ready to exchange dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. Thusly, countries had confidence that their dollars held for trading purposes were as “good as gold,” as had been the Pound Sterling at one time.
However, the Fed did not maintain its commitment to the Bretton Woods Agreement and the IMF did not attempt to force it to hold enough gold to honor all its outstanding currency in gold at $35 per ounce. The Fed was called to account in the late 1960s, first by France and then by others, until its gold reserves were so low that it had no choice but to revalue the dollar at some higher exchange rate or abrogate its responsibilities to honor dollars for gold entirely. To it everlasting shame, the US chose the latter and “went off the gold standard” in September 1971.
Nevertheless, the dollar was still held by the great trading nations, because it still performed the useful function of settling international trading accounts. There was no other currency that could match the dollar, despite the fact that it was “delinked” from gold.
There are two characteristics of a currency that make it useful in international trade: one, it is issued by a large trading nation itself, and, two, the currency holds its value vis-à-vis other commodities over time. These two factors create a demand for holding a currency in reserve. Although the dollar was being inflated by the Fed, thusly losing its value vis-à-vis other commodities over time, there was no real competition. The German Deutsche mark held its value better, but German trade was a fraction of US trade, meaning that holders of marks would find less to buy in Germany than holders of dollars would find in the US. So demand for the mark was lower than demand for the dollar. Of course, psychological factors entered the demand for dollars, too, since the US was seen as the military protector of all the Western nations against the communist countries for much of the post-war period.
Today we are seeing the beginnings of a change. The Fed has been inflating the dollar massively, reducing its purchasing power in relation to other commodities, causing many of the world’s great trading nations to use other monies upon occasion. I have it on good authority, for example, that DuPont settles many of its international accounts in Chinese yuan and European euros. There may be other currencies that are in demand for trade settlement by other international companies as well. In spite of all this, one factor that has helped the dollar retain its reserve currency demand is that the other currencies have been inflated, too. For example, Japan has inflated the yen to a greater extent than the dollar in its foolish attempt to revive its stagnant economy by cheapening its currency. So the monetary destruction disease is not limited to the US alone.
The dollar is very susceptible to losing its vaunted reserve currency position by the first major trading country that stops inflating its currency. There is evidence that China understands what is at stake; it has increased its gold holdings and has instituted controls to prevent gold from leaving China. Should the world’s second largest economy and one of the world’s greatest trading nations tie its currency to gold, demand for the yuan would increase and demand for the dollar would decrease. In practical terms this means that the world’s great trading nations would reduce their holdings of dollars, and dollars held overseas would flow back into the US economy, causing prices to increase. How much would they increase? It is hard to say, but keep in mind that there is an equal amount of dollars held outside the US as inside the US.
President Obama’s imminent appointment of career bureaucrat Janice Yellen as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is evidence that the US policy of continuing to cheapen the dollar via Quantitative Easing will continue. Her appointment increases the likelihood that demand for dollars will decline even further, raising the likelihood of much higher prices in America as demand by trading nations to hold other currencies as reserves for trade settlement increase. Perhaps only such non-coercive pressure from a sovereign country like China can wake up the Fed to the consequences of its actions and force it to end its Quantitative Easing policy.
Friday, October 11, 2013
What Is In A Coke
I gave up drinking soda- more or less, as I may have one every few months- cold turkey a few years ago. One of the best decisions I ever made. Instantly dropped five or more pounds on top of feeling more energetic. I believe people should be allowed to do nearly anything they want, but the consequences of their choices and information needed to judge those consequences should be transparent. That all said, I was reading the below highlighted by a friend, and I come back to what I said above... one of the best decisions I have made.
Have you ever wondered what exactly Coca Cola is?
Have you ever wondered what exactly Coca Cola is?
After 10 minutes: The
sugar contained in a glass of Cola can cause a devastating “strike” on
the body. The cause being the phosphoric acid which inhibits the action
of sugar.
After 20 minutes: A leap in insulin levels in bloodstream occurs.
After 40 minutes: Ingestion of caffeine is finally completed. The eye’s pupils are expanding. Blood pressure rises because the liver disposes more sugar into the bloodstream. The adenosine receptors become blocked thereby preventing drowsiness.
After 40 minutes: Ingestion of caffeine is finally completed. The eye’s pupils are expanding. Blood pressure rises because the liver disposes more sugar into the bloodstream. The adenosine receptors become blocked thereby preventing drowsiness.
After 45 minutes: The
body raises production of the dopamine hormone, which stimulates the
brain pleasure center. Similar to the reaction Heroin creates.
After 1 hour:
Phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in the
gastrointestinal tract, which supercharges metabolism. The release of
calcium through urine takes place.
After more than 1 hour:
Diuretic effects of the drink enters in “the game”. The calcium,
magnesium and zinc are removed out of the body, which are a part of our
bones, as well as sodium. At this time we can become irritable or
subdued. The whole quantity of water, contained in a coca cola, is
removed through urination.
When having a cold bottle of Coke and
enjoying its undeniable freshness are we aware of what chemical
“cocktail” we are putting into our bodies? The active ingredient in
Coca-Cola is orthophosphoric acid. Due to its high acidity, cisterns
used for transporting the chemical have to be equipped with special
reservoirs designed for highly corrosive materials.
Let’s have a look at “the anatomy” of
one of the most advertised products of “Coca-Cola Co.” – Coca-Cola Light
without caffeine. This drink contains Aqua Carbonated, E150D, E952,
E951, E338, E330, Aromas, E211.
Aqua Carbonated – this
is sparkling water. It stirs gastric secretion, increases the acidity of
the gastric juice and provokes flatulency. Filtered tap water is what
is primarily used.
E150D – this is food
coloring obtained through the processing of sugar at specified
temperatures, with or without addition of chemical reagents. In the case
of coca-cola, ammonium sulfate is added.
E952 – Sodium Cyclamate
is a sugar substitute. Cyclamate is a synthetic chemical, has a sweet
taste, which is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and is used as an
artificial sweetener. In 1969 it was banned by FDA, since it, as well as
saccharin and aspartame, caused cancer in rats.
E950 – Acesulfame
Potassium. 200 times sweeter than sugar, containing methyl-ether. It
aggravates the operation of the cardiovascular system. Likewise, it
contains asparaginic acid which can also cause an excitant effect on our
nervous system and in time it can lead to addiction. Acesulfame is
badly dissolved and is not recommended for use by children and pregnant
women.
E951 – Aspartame. A
sugar substitute for diabetics and is chemically unstable at elevated
temperatures it breaks down into methanol and phenylalanine. Methanol is
very dangerous as only 5-10ml can cause destruction of the optic nerve
and irreversible blindness. In warm soft drinks, aspartame transforms
into formaldehyde which is a very strong carcinogen. Symptoms of
aspartame poisoning include: unconsciousness, headaches, fatigue,
dizziness, nausea, palpitation, weight gain, irritability, anxiety,
memory loss, blurry vision, fainting, joint pains, depression,
infertility, hearing loss and more. Aspartame can also provoke the
following diseases: brain tumors, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), epilepsy,
Graves’ disease, chronic fatigue, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, mental
deficiency and tuberculosis. Later, this substance was initially illegal
due to its dangers but was again made legal in a suspicious manner.
E338 – Orthophosphoric
Acid. This can cause irritation of the skin and eyes. It is used for
production of phosphoric acid salts of ammonia, sodium, calcium,
aluminum and also in organic synthesis for the production of charcoal
and film tapes. It is also used in the production of refractory
materials, ceramics, glass, fertilizers, synthetic detergents, medicine,
metalworking, as well as in the textile and oil industries. It is known
that orthophosphoric acid interferes with the absorption of calcium and
iron into the body which can cause weakening of bones and osteoporosis.
Other side effects are thirst and skin rashes.
E330 – Citric Acid. It
is widely used in pharmaceutical and food industries. Salts of citric
acid (citrates) are used in the food industry as acids, preservatives,
stabilizers, and in the medical fields – for preserving blood.
Aromas – unknown aromatic additives
E211 – Sodium Benzoate.
It is used in production of some food products for anti-bacterial and
anti-fungal purposes. It is often found in jams, fruit juices and fruit
yogurts. It’s not recommended for use by asthmatics and people who are
sensitive to aspirin. A study conducted by Peter Piper at the Sheffield
University in Britain, found that this compound causes significant
damage to DNA. According to Peter, sodium benzoate which is an active
component in preservatives, doesn’t destroy DNA, but deactivates it.
This can lead to cirrhosis and degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s
disease.
A Must Read From James Grant- American Default Inevitable
The highlighted sections below are mine
James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, the following is op-ed written at the Washington Post
“There is precedent for a government shutdown,” Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, remarked last week. “There’s no precedent for default.”
How wrong he is.
The U.S. government defaulted after the Revolutionary War, and it defaulted at intervals thereafter. Moreover, on the authority of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the government means to keep right on shirking, dodging or trimming, if not legally defaulting.
Default means to not pay as promised, and politics may interrupt the timely service of the government’s debts. The consequences of such a disruption could — as everyone knows by now — set Wall Street on its ear. But after the various branches of government resume talking and investors have collected themselves, the Treasury will have no trouble finding the necessary billions with which to pay its bills. The Federal Reserve can materialize the scrip on a computer screen.
Things were very different when America owed the kind of dollars that couldn’t just be whistled into existence. By 1790, the new republic was in arrears on $11,710,000 in foreign debt. These were obligations payable in gold and silver. Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury, duly paid them. In doing so, he cured a default.
Hamilton’s dollar was defined as a little less than 1/20 of an ounce of gold. So were those of his successors, all the way up to the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But in the whirlwind of the “first hundred days” of the New Deal, the dollar came in for redefinition. The country needed a cheaper and more abundant currency, FDR said. By and by, the dollar’s value was reduced to 1/35 of an ounce of gold.
By any fair definition, this was another default. Creditors both domestic and foreign had lent dollars weighing just what the Founders had said they should weigh. They expected to be repaid in identical money.
Language to this effect — a “gold clause” — was standard in debt contracts of the time, including instruments binding the Treasury. But Congress resolved to abrogate those contracts, and in 1935 the Supreme Court upheld Congress.
The “American default,” as this piece of domestic stimulus was known in foreign parts , provoked condemnation in the City of London. “One of the most egregious defaults in history,” judged the London Financial News. “For repudiation of the gold clause is nothing less than that. The plea that recent developments have created abnormal circumstances is wholly irrelevant. It was precisely against such circumstances that the gold clause was designed to safeguard bondholders.”
The lighter Roosevelt dollar did service until 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon lightened it again. In fact, Nixon allowed it to float. No longer was the value of the greenback defined in law as a particular weight of gold or silver. It became what it looked like: a piece of paper.
Yet the U.S. government continued to find trusting creditors. Since the Nixon default, the public’s holdings of the federal debt have climbed from $303 billion to $11.9 trillion.
If today’s political impasse leads to another default, it will be a kind of technicality. Sooner or later, the Obama Treasury will resume writing checks. The question is what those checks will buy.
“Less and less,” is the Federal Reserve’s announced goal. Under Chairman Ben Bernanke (with the full support of the presumptive chairman-to-be, Janet Yellen), the central bank has redefined price “stability” to mean a rate of inflation of 2 percent per annum. Any smaller rate of depreciation is an unsatisfactory showing to be met with a faster gait of money-printing, policymakers say.
In other words, the value of money has become an instrument of public policy, not an honest weight or measure. In such a setting, an old-time “default” is impossible. How can a creditor cry foul when the government to which he is lending has repeatedly said that the value of the money he lent will shrink?
The post-1971 dollar derives its value from the stamp of the government that issues it. Across the seas, this imprimatur is starting to look a little tenuous. Lend us your dollars for 10 years, the Treasury proposes. We will pay you the lordly interest rate of 2.7 percent per annum. And at the end of those 10 years, we will hand you back your principal, which will almost certainly buy less than the money you lent.
This is the unsustainable conceit of the world’s superpower-cum-super debtor. By deed, if not audible word, we Americans say: “The greenback is the world’s great monetary brand. You have no choice but to use it. Like it or lump it.” But the historical record of paper currencies is clear: Governments always over-issue it. The people finally do lump it.
What to do? Let us face facts: We have defaulted in the past. Let us confront the implied message of the Federal Reserve’s pro-inflation policy: We will default in the future, though no lawyer will call it “default.” And let us preempt the world’s flight from our intangible money by taking steps to fashion a 21st-century improvement. We have the gold and the brains to find the solution.
James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, the following is op-ed written at the Washington Post
“There is precedent for a government shutdown,” Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, remarked last week. “There’s no precedent for default.”
How wrong he is.
The U.S. government defaulted after the Revolutionary War, and it defaulted at intervals thereafter. Moreover, on the authority of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the government means to keep right on shirking, dodging or trimming, if not legally defaulting.
Default means to not pay as promised, and politics may interrupt the timely service of the government’s debts. The consequences of such a disruption could — as everyone knows by now — set Wall Street on its ear. But after the various branches of government resume talking and investors have collected themselves, the Treasury will have no trouble finding the necessary billions with which to pay its bills. The Federal Reserve can materialize the scrip on a computer screen.
Things were very different when America owed the kind of dollars that couldn’t just be whistled into existence. By 1790, the new republic was in arrears on $11,710,000 in foreign debt. These were obligations payable in gold and silver. Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury, duly paid them. In doing so, he cured a default.
Hamilton’s dollar was defined as a little less than 1/20 of an ounce of gold. So were those of his successors, all the way up to the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But in the whirlwind of the “first hundred days” of the New Deal, the dollar came in for redefinition. The country needed a cheaper and more abundant currency, FDR said. By and by, the dollar’s value was reduced to 1/35 of an ounce of gold.
By any fair definition, this was another default. Creditors both domestic and foreign had lent dollars weighing just what the Founders had said they should weigh. They expected to be repaid in identical money.
Language to this effect — a “gold clause” — was standard in debt contracts of the time, including instruments binding the Treasury. But Congress resolved to abrogate those contracts, and in 1935 the Supreme Court upheld Congress.
The “American default,” as this piece of domestic stimulus was known in foreign parts , provoked condemnation in the City of London. “One of the most egregious defaults in history,” judged the London Financial News. “For repudiation of the gold clause is nothing less than that. The plea that recent developments have created abnormal circumstances is wholly irrelevant. It was precisely against such circumstances that the gold clause was designed to safeguard bondholders.”
The lighter Roosevelt dollar did service until 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon lightened it again. In fact, Nixon allowed it to float. No longer was the value of the greenback defined in law as a particular weight of gold or silver. It became what it looked like: a piece of paper.
Yet the U.S. government continued to find trusting creditors. Since the Nixon default, the public’s holdings of the federal debt have climbed from $303 billion to $11.9 trillion.
If today’s political impasse leads to another default, it will be a kind of technicality. Sooner or later, the Obama Treasury will resume writing checks. The question is what those checks will buy.
“Less and less,” is the Federal Reserve’s announced goal. Under Chairman Ben Bernanke (with the full support of the presumptive chairman-to-be, Janet Yellen), the central bank has redefined price “stability” to mean a rate of inflation of 2 percent per annum. Any smaller rate of depreciation is an unsatisfactory showing to be met with a faster gait of money-printing, policymakers say.
In other words, the value of money has become an instrument of public policy, not an honest weight or measure. In such a setting, an old-time “default” is impossible. How can a creditor cry foul when the government to which he is lending has repeatedly said that the value of the money he lent will shrink?
The post-1971 dollar derives its value from the stamp of the government that issues it. Across the seas, this imprimatur is starting to look a little tenuous. Lend us your dollars for 10 years, the Treasury proposes. We will pay you the lordly interest rate of 2.7 percent per annum. And at the end of those 10 years, we will hand you back your principal, which will almost certainly buy less than the money you lent.
This is the unsustainable conceit of the world’s superpower-cum-super debtor. By deed, if not audible word, we Americans say: “The greenback is the world’s great monetary brand. You have no choice but to use it. Like it or lump it.” But the historical record of paper currencies is clear: Governments always over-issue it. The people finally do lump it.
What to do? Let us face facts: We have defaulted in the past. Let us confront the implied message of the Federal Reserve’s pro-inflation policy: We will default in the future, though no lawyer will call it “default.” And let us preempt the world’s flight from our intangible money by taking steps to fashion a 21st-century improvement. We have the gold and the brains to find the solution.
Significant Analyst Recommendation Actions- Oct. 11
Some interesting names turning up here. More than few names receiving positive actions, remember the names include not only actual rating changes but also target price changes, and less so in the negative column. However, there were a few negative rating action names also coming off their highs with volume.... possible short candidates?
Positive Rating and Target Price Actions
... and more names
Negative Rating and Target Price Actions
.... and more names
Positive Rating and Target Price Actions
... and more names
| VAC | COF | XEC | MO | CSX | BDX | UNT | FELE |
| NFLX | KEX | OKE | RMD | TSS | GWR | TJX | CRS |
| SGY | AIG | CERN | RHI | XLNX | DNR | RGLD | TXI |
| CNX | BA | CSC | FLS | IEX | ROSE | PPG | DRC |
| DFS | EGN | ORIT | CRK | SNPS | MMC | DVA | PNK |
| MDCO | DTV | HELE | NSC | COG | UPS | SAIC | MW |
| ASGN | PCP | HST | EL | WPX | POOL | WTS | HPQ |
| LO | NKE | HPY | XYL | PB | CHK | VRTX | |
| FNFG | MAN | SEE | LOW | LHO | ALK | RPM | |
| CBS | DRH | HI | PNR | EBAY | ROST | FCX |
Negative Rating and Target Price Actions
.... and more names
| TGI |
| NE |
| ESL |
| PM |
| COL |
| GLW |
High Volume High- Oct. 10 Trading Day Edition
The results of the high volume high screen were rather sparse considering the demand and price surge that we saw in yesterday's trading. There can be a great number of reasons why this occurred, all of which mean nothing, but in of itself this is interesting dynamic, as it may suggest an underlying weakness in the rally yesterday. That said, I still think we will chug towards the highs. At that price point will likely be where information will be released.
Volume Off the High- Oct. 10 Trading Day Edition
Yes, there was actually a few names (other than the 2x and 3x bear funds) that traded off in yesterday's trading.
U.S. Won't Default Unless Obama Orders It- David Stockman
Just in case any deal does get passed by Congress, here is a way to think about any 'debt default'.
And the Rubber Band Snaps Back- Price/Volume Heat Map for Oct. 10 Trading Day
And there it is, the elusive demand that I thought would appear once Washington came to some agreement. Following an appearance that lawmakers are closing in on some sort of agreement, the market rallied strongly and gained more 200 basis points in value. That said, I am surprised that the markets were apparently baking in some sort of short-term debt default or at the very least a passing through of the Oct. 17 deadline with no Congressional agreement. It has been Washington's history, increasingly so I might add, that major deals are agreed upon in the 11th hour. Why would this one be any different. Of well, it most certainly makes events interesting.
I an any event, all the sector groups rallied strongly on the news of a compromise and demand was extraordinary strong across the board. I would expect there to be follow through that carries equity prices back towards the highs.
I an any event, all the sector groups rallied strongly on the news of a compromise and demand was extraordinary strong across the board. I would expect there to be follow through that carries equity prices back towards the highs.
What The U.S. Owes and To Whom
This great chart comes via NPR. I do have a little contention with accounting for debt owned by Social Security (and other entitlements for that matter), as being owed to the Federal government, as the entitlement programs are essentially a pass through and promise to the people, but that aside the chart shows the sheer magnitude of the problem.
Notes
The graph includes debt owed to the Social Security trust fund and other federal funds. These are sometimes excluded when calculating the debt for other purposes. For details,Thursday, October 10, 2013
Price/Volume Diffusion Index Points to Higher Prices But....
The Price/Volume Diffusion Index (PVDI) currently measures in at 55 demarcation. This is event after the latest bout of selling, most likely due to generally weak volume levels on the decline sans two or three trading days. The below chart shows the PVDI through the latest trading day.
In my mind, this suggests that equity prices will likely be higher in the trading days ahead, as a PVDI at or above 50 have generally been followed by an improvement in performance.
That said, the strength of the rally appears to have weakened. For evidence of that, I turn to the raw summation index (date results that pour into the PVDI) and the slope of the summation index. First, here is the summation index.
The turn in summation index from the recent decline confirms my belief that equity prices will turn higher from the recent sell off. However, the index has become increasingly volatile, suggesting a growing feeling of uncertainty in the minds of traders and investors. More so.....
The slope of the summation index continues to weaken. To me this suggests that, despite remaining overall positive, the demand for equities has waned with higher prices. This has occurred in conjunction with the uncertainty caused by the Fed's will they or won't they stance as it pertains to QE, the arguing children in Washington, and an overall weak economic environment.
I think the rally in equities is probably set to resume, or at the very least a test of the highs is on the offing, but that any rally is on borrowed time.
In my mind, this suggests that equity prices will likely be higher in the trading days ahead, as a PVDI at or above 50 have generally been followed by an improvement in performance.
That said, the strength of the rally appears to have weakened. For evidence of that, I turn to the raw summation index (date results that pour into the PVDI) and the slope of the summation index. First, here is the summation index.
I think the rally in equities is probably set to resume, or at the very least a test of the highs is on the offing, but that any rally is on borrowed time.
Significant Analyst Recommendation Actions- Oct. 10
There are few stocks that look interesting after receiving some positive rating actions.
Positive Rating Action Names
More names Positive Rating Action Name
Negative Rating Action Names
Positive Rating Action Names
More names Positive Rating Action Name
| BLKB |
| APC |
| ADI |
| BEAV |
| ACOR |
Negative Rating Action Names
Volume Off the High- Oct 9 Trading Day Edition
Not many names moving here as the overall market seemed balanced between supply and demand.
A Lot of Going On, Price/Volume Heat Map for Oct. 9 Trading Day
A fair amount of churn in yesterday's trading action, as the weight of the continued government shutdown and the debt ceiling overhand further weighed on investors and traders propensity to step up and buy equities. On that notion, the market closed marginally up yesterday on mixed results on a sector basis.
Turning to the price/volume heat map, the balance between supply and demand was just that, balanced. This pattern repeated across the sectors except for in materials, where despite posting market relative performance showed both stronger demand and supply. That all said, today's actions appears to be a follow through of the fairly bullish setup that was indicated in yesterday's trading, noting that the hammer candle pattern at the close suggested that buyers were entering the market. This follows the formal nomination of
Yellen by the President and an apparent reconciliation between the children in Washington, in at least the ability of the sides to come to the table and talk. Either way, I would expect some follow through of the gains once Congress comes to pass a debt ceiling/budget resolution.
Turning to the price/volume heat map, the balance between supply and demand was just that, balanced. This pattern repeated across the sectors except for in materials, where despite posting market relative performance showed both stronger demand and supply. That all said, today's actions appears to be a follow through of the fairly bullish setup that was indicated in yesterday's trading, noting that the hammer candle pattern at the close suggested that buyers were entering the market. This follows the formal nomination of
Yellen by the President and an apparent reconciliation between the children in Washington, in at least the ability of the sides to come to the table and talk. Either way, I would expect some follow through of the gains once Congress comes to pass a debt ceiling/budget resolution.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Yellen- The Next Fed Chair
It appears that Janet Yellen will be the next Fed Chair. All she needs now is the confirmation of the Senate, which she most undoubtedly get after a dog-and-pony show of questioning. No politician will bite the hand that feeds them. With that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph wrote a good article detailing her history with the Fed and financial policy making. Sadly, the piece leaves out letting the market correct its owns problems and that the Fed's interference is the cause of most economic problems.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph
We now know where we stand. Janet Yellen is to take over the US Federal Reserve, the world's monetary hegemon, the master of all our lives.
The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.
No Fed chief in history has been better qualified. She is a glaring contrast to Alan Greenspan, a political speech writer for Richard Nixon, who never earned a real PhD (it was honorary) or penned an economic paper of depth.
She has pedigree. Her husband is Nobel laureate George Akerlof, the scourge of efficient markets theory. She co-authored "Market for Lemons", the paper that won the prize.
Currently vice-chairman of the Fed, she was a junior governor from 1994 to 1997 under Greenspan, and then president of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010. She was head of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 1999, when she handled the Asian crisis. You could hardly find a safer pair of hands.
Note that she confronted Greenspan head-on in 1996, pushing for pre-emptive rate rises to choke inflation and wean the economy of cheap credit. She was entirely right to do so. That was the moment when the Fed began to make a series of fatal errors, becoming addicted to ever lower real interest rates. Nobody called her a dove then.
She was on the other side a decade later during those crucial months before the subprime housing crash, quick to sense the danger of a chain reaction through the shadow banking system. Ben Bernanke and the FOMC majority scoffed at worries that the subprime debacle was the tip of an iceberg.
“I feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector. The risk for further significant deterioration, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising, causes me appreciable angst," she told Fed colleagues in June 2007, a 15 months before the storm hit.
The transcripts show that she clashed with New York Fed chief William Dudley in December 2007 over the risks of subprime mortgage defaults, which is telling since Dudley (ex Goldman Sachs) was supposed to be the official with his finger on the market pulse. “The possibilities of a credit crunch developing and of the economy slipping into a recession seem all too real. At the time of our last meeting, I held out hope that the financial turmoil would gradually ebb and the economy might escape without serious damage. Subsequent developments have severely shaken that belief,” she said.
She was absolutely right again. We now know that the US economy was already in recession by then (though the Fed did not then have the data). We now know too from a devastating book by the Richmond Fed’s Robert Hetzel – "The Great Recession" – that the Fed itself was the chief cause of the disaster that unfolded in 2008. The FOMC was far too tight. It let the M2 money supply implode in early 2008. That is what led to the Lehman, AIG, Fannie/Freddie disasters. The rest is noise.
Janet Yellen was not to blame. She later backed QE to the hilt, fighting a chorus of amateur alarmists who claimed that inflation was poised to take off. She was again proved right. Core inflation in the US is currently hovering near a half century low. The greater danger is still deflation.
There is little doubt that the she is a dove in today's circumstances. She tracks jobs. Her lodestar is the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU). When the rate is above NAIRU, she is a dove: when below, she is a hawk.
My guess is that we are still a very, very long way for NAIRU. Yes, the Fed is committed to tapering QE to zero once the jobless level reaches 7pc (and raise rates once it hits to 6.5pc), and yes, this could in theory happen much sooner than the think want since the headline rate has already plummeted to 7.3pc.
But this headline rate is wildly misleading because so many workers have given up searching for a job. They have fallen off the rolls. The labour participation rate has collapsed to a 35-year low of 63.2pc. It is blindingly obvious that the real rate of unemployment is much higher than it looks. Some of these people have been driven out of the work force for ever, left behind by new technologies, but surely not all.
Mrs Yellen tipped her hand in a speech to the labour unions in February, a text now being studied for clues.
This leaves me deeply uneasy. We are surely past the point where we can keep using QE to pump up asset prices. My view is that emergency stimulus should henceforth be deployed only to inject money directly into the veins of the economy as an adjunct to the US Treasury, by fiscal dominance, as deemed necessary.
That would take an intellectual revolution. Is Janet Yellen game for such incendiary ideas?
Perhaps.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph
We now know where we stand. Janet Yellen is to take over the US Federal Reserve, the world's monetary hegemon, the master of all our lives.
The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.
No Fed chief in history has been better qualified. She is a glaring contrast to Alan Greenspan, a political speech writer for Richard Nixon, who never earned a real PhD (it was honorary) or penned an economic paper of depth.
She has pedigree. Her husband is Nobel laureate George Akerlof, the scourge of efficient markets theory. She co-authored "Market for Lemons", the paper that won the prize.
Currently vice-chairman of the Fed, she was a junior governor from 1994 to 1997 under Greenspan, and then president of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010. She was head of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 1999, when she handled the Asian crisis. You could hardly find a safer pair of hands.
Note that she confronted Greenspan head-on in 1996, pushing for pre-emptive rate rises to choke inflation and wean the economy of cheap credit. She was entirely right to do so. That was the moment when the Fed began to make a series of fatal errors, becoming addicted to ever lower real interest rates. Nobody called her a dove then.
She was on the other side a decade later during those crucial months before the subprime housing crash, quick to sense the danger of a chain reaction through the shadow banking system. Ben Bernanke and the FOMC majority scoffed at worries that the subprime debacle was the tip of an iceberg.
“I feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector. The risk for further significant deterioration, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising, causes me appreciable angst," she told Fed colleagues in June 2007, a 15 months before the storm hit.
The transcripts show that she clashed with New York Fed chief William Dudley in December 2007 over the risks of subprime mortgage defaults, which is telling since Dudley (ex Goldman Sachs) was supposed to be the official with his finger on the market pulse. “The possibilities of a credit crunch developing and of the economy slipping into a recession seem all too real. At the time of our last meeting, I held out hope that the financial turmoil would gradually ebb and the economy might escape without serious damage. Subsequent developments have severely shaken that belief,” she said.
She was absolutely right again. We now know that the US economy was already in recession by then (though the Fed did not then have the data). We now know too from a devastating book by the Richmond Fed’s Robert Hetzel – "The Great Recession" – that the Fed itself was the chief cause of the disaster that unfolded in 2008. The FOMC was far too tight. It let the M2 money supply implode in early 2008. That is what led to the Lehman, AIG, Fannie/Freddie disasters. The rest is noise.
Janet Yellen was not to blame. She later backed QE to the hilt, fighting a chorus of amateur alarmists who claimed that inflation was poised to take off. She was again proved right. Core inflation in the US is currently hovering near a half century low. The greater danger is still deflation.
There is little doubt that the she is a dove in today's circumstances. She tracks jobs. Her lodestar is the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU). When the rate is above NAIRU, she is a dove: when below, she is a hawk.
My guess is that we are still a very, very long way for NAIRU. Yes, the Fed is committed to tapering QE to zero once the jobless level reaches 7pc (and raise rates once it hits to 6.5pc), and yes, this could in theory happen much sooner than the think want since the headline rate has already plummeted to 7.3pc.
But this headline rate is wildly misleading because so many workers have given up searching for a job. They have fallen off the rolls. The labour participation rate has collapsed to a 35-year low of 63.2pc. It is blindingly obvious that the real rate of unemployment is much higher than it looks. Some of these people have been driven out of the work force for ever, left behind by new technologies, but surely not all.
Mrs Yellen tipped her hand in a speech to the labour unions in February, a text now being studied for clues.
Three million Americans have been looking for work for one year or more; that's one-fourth of all unemployed workers, which is down from 2011's peak but far larger than was seen before the Great Recession. These are not just statistics to me. We know that long-term unemployment is devastating to workers and their families. When you're unemployed for six months or a year, it is hard to qualify for a lease, so even the option of relocating to find a job is often off the table. The toll is simply terrible on the mental and physical health of workers, on their marriages, and on their children.And then the key line:
If the current, elevated rate of unemployment is largely cyclical, then the straightforward solution is to take action to raise aggregate demand. If unemployment is instead substantially structural, some worry that attempts to raise aggregate demand will have little effect on unemployment and serve only to stoke inflation.So there we have it. The next chairman of the Fed is going to track the labour participation rate. Money will stay loose. Markets have been spared again. The Brics can breathe easier.
I see the evidence as consistent with the view that the increase in unemployment since the onset of the Great Recession has been largely cyclical and not structural.
This leaves me deeply uneasy. We are surely past the point where we can keep using QE to pump up asset prices. My view is that emergency stimulus should henceforth be deployed only to inject money directly into the veins of the economy as an adjunct to the US Treasury, by fiscal dominance, as deemed necessary.
That would take an intellectual revolution. Is Janet Yellen game for such incendiary ideas?
Perhaps.
Significant Analyst Recommendation Actions- Oct. 9
Moving to posting only the top five movers of the day. The remainder will be shown only as tickers.
Positive Rating Actions...... and there are more than a few
Negative Rating Action
Positive Rating Actions...... and there are more than a few
| CRR | PPL | TESO | SE | DGX | STX | CI | TWC | INTU |
| WEN | SSS | FNP | TCBI | MTB | OSK | UNH | ITW | SWK |
| BRS | EWBC | GNW | TDY | TDW | CMTL | CNC | TROW | AGN |
| NOG | CBB | LUV | MOS | SXC | DO | CVX | ESV | CMG |
| IART | WIN | HOS | FRX | BWLD | URS | COP | TYC | BBG |
| CVS | SRE | HP | RF | SIVB | BAC | LYV | RJF | IVZ |
| IVC | WFM | KR | FMER | WCG | FISV | AVT | UTX | UHS |
| DEL | CCE | IDXX | TRN | SM | LMT | COST | CNK | PFE |
| THC | CMA | HII | MD | WAB | BMY | NBR | ZTS | DPZ |
| WOR | ARW | NR | WAG | CAT | IBKR | ADP | GPS | ENS |
| HLIT | TGI | AET | HUM | MATX | SWY | CBST | DECK | YHOO |
| CBT | TIF | HOG | IPCM | CREE | TEX | GEO | PRAA | SNTS |
| COL | AMAT | TW | MA | LRCX | LHCG | ORI | MU | CRM |
| CCI | FITB | JEC | SPPI | RBC | AMP | KBR | PII | FBHS |
| WU | PCAR | IT | PH | GPN | FLR | PVA | WDR | CIEN |
| MOV | RTN | ZUMZ | WHR | HCSG | GPOR | DAL | PDCE | |
| AREX | THOR | CW | STT | SF | DKS | BEN | RT | |
| OMG | AOS | DY | CYT | V | IGT | CF | ETFC | |
| HNT | MRO | SBUX | MHK | UMPQ | BC | GM | ABBV | |
| TSN | MTRX | NE | JOY | VFC | PTEN | MYL | CELG |
Negative Rating Action
| CJES | TJX | UIL |
| CIR | INFA | MRK |
| RL | HSP | HBHC |
| WTS | FLS | THS |
| CR | CSCO | YUM |
| FIS | HI | CNMD |
| TEL | WFC | NU |
| ROST | CUB | LLY |
| APH | CHRW | |
| VSI | LPNT |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)