Sunday, May 15, 2016

The New Socialism vs Bull And Bear Markets in History

Complaining about our presidents in the US of A is maybe second only to baseball as our national pass-time.   So allow me to indulge in a rant.  I want to take a somewhat spiteful look at the financial market history of our presidents since John Kennedy - an era that I think of as a Comedy of Errors, one of the Bard's great plays.   But it isn't so funny.  Then we will look at our upcoming election in the light of all this.

John Kennedy gave us a free market administration, with low taxes and a business friendly slant.  He felt that the tax and regulation burden on business was an economy killer.  His policies extended the great bull market from the late 1940s to 1966, the post depression recovery.  Perhaps his most famous wisdom was "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country". This saying has a lot of significance in our present heated debate over what our government should be doing for our mess as opposed to removing over-taxing, over-regulation, and other short-term government fixes so that individual businesses can do their thing for our country.  It would have been a good Tea Party slogan had it not already been used by Kennedy.

Unfortunately, Kennedy's VP didn't have his partner's key wisdom very near to his heart.  Lyndon Johnson was probably best known for his Great Society programs, which were an over-done version of some of Kennedy's initiatives to help the poor.  Under Johnson, they became big government helping hands in a War On Poverty, as if it were government's job to regulate the economic status of individuals.  Some of these things survive to this day, like Medicare, and are a big help.  But many were bureaucratic boondoggles - and all began to be a tax problem.  By the time LBJ left office in 1968, the great secular bear market of 1966-1982 had begun.  You can't blame that whole bear market on one president, but an age of asking what your country can do for you had begun.

Then came Nixon.  A normal paper/hard asset cycle turn had begun away from paper investment and to hard assets (commodities).  The turn away from the 20 year stock bull market to the 16 year commodity bull market that began in 1966 was perhaps triggered, or at least abetted, by the bad business policy that came after John Kennedy.  Economy friendly government seems to have died with JFK's murder in 1963.  The commodity bull market had inflation running at around 4% in Nixon's time.   His reaction? - wage and price controls.  Was he a student of the Soviet Union?  This socialist intervention was a dismal failure.  It was a government engineered fix to a government engineered problem.  Sound familiar?  The economy truly went into the ravine under his socialist guidance.  And he took us off the gold standard in 1971 for good measure.  This was to facilitate the government's "helping" hands and loosen up its wrist for the dollar's printing press to follow.  By the time Nixon left office in 1974, the stock market had lost about 50%.  He was bounced out of office for lying before he could do any more damage.

Then came Ford and Carter.  Ford served only briefly and sadly, Carter was a damper on the economy.  His forte was, and is to this day, international peace negotiation.  He put together the Camp David Accords easing Mid-East problems for quite awhile.  But on the economy, he seemed to want to continue the post Kennedy legacy of bigger government, bigger taxes, and more departments (he added two right off the bat) and was the first bail-out president when he bailed out Chrysler in 1979.  Before Obama-care, there was "Carter-care", a government-run health-care system that went nowhere in Congress.  He created the massive Superfund to clean up chemicals in the ground wherever they could be found.  If there was a problem with the economy, government could fix it.

All of this string of socialist presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter spanned the 15 years of the great secular bear market in stocks from 1966 to 1982, which saw the Dow unable to break 1000 and lose a lot of ground to stagflation. Then came the Reagan Revolution.  And it was just that - a very fundamental change in government, the first real change since Kennedy died.  Whereas LBJ declared war on poverty, Reagan declared war on big government.  Many presidents' worth of government helping hands had the Reagan campaign's "misery index" at such an unbearable high that he was swept into office in one of the most one-sided elections in history.  Reagan declared war on big government and big spending and was the first real business friendly president in 20 years.  And the markets picked up on it, sending us roaring into a secular bull stock market and economic growth.

If you look at a history of US budget deficits and surpluses, you can see this changing tide of socialism playing out:

Detractors of Reagan like to point at the continuing deficits of 1981-1989, Reagan's time in office, as if the preceding stagflation trend had done any better.  But as this article points out, Reagan had to do massive tax cuts, win both the war on inflation and the Soviet Union, before the economic boom finally put surpluses back on the board.

The next chain of presidencies, when you think about it, was 5 terms covering 3 men and 20 years. They all pretty much sought to continue the Revolution. The Clinton terms in the middle wound up being free market and business friendly, not to mention, with the help of a good economy, budget balancing.  Clinton, either by the mandate of the mid-term elections or by a change of philosophy, or a combination of both, put together a pretty fair economic team by the time he left office.

But in the biggest socialism blight ever, we had a banana republic regime of central bankers imposing the greatest mountain of debt of all time on all of us.  All the presidents occupying the White House from 1981 to 2008 turned a blind eye to this fifth column as "market stuff" that they didn't need to worry about.  A new tyrant had taken over the bull/bear cycle, and the 1982-2000 secular bull was killed not by over-interventionist presidential socialism, but by financial weapons of mass destruction.

With Bush II and Obama, we have gone back to the post-Kennedy and pre-Reagan socialist world. Bush did not exactly have a revolutionary, business friendly congress, and Obama would confiscate every private business in the land if he could get away with it.  A secular bear market in stocks and all non-debt fueled paper assets began in the 2000s.  Robust economic growth now seems to be a thing of the past.  Obama is responding to these problems with the socialism of Nixon, and the government helping hands of LBJ and Carter.

As the over arching socialism of central bankers puts debt and currency issues front and center, the old fashioned president/economy relationship is fading.  The "socialist" Bernie Sanders is the only major US presidential candidate I know of to advocate reinstating Glass-Steagall.  This was the safeguard necessitated by Depression banking collapses that barred banking fools from gambling with depositors accounts in stocks or anything but the business forming loans they had been doing before the Roaring 1920s led them astray. 

We had many decades of banking peace after this 1933 Act.  Then came the banker inspired repeal of Glass-Steagall in the roaring 1999, and we have had one financial crisis after another ever since.  Fully reinstating Glass-Steagall is an issue in the election as detailed in an article at NerdWallet "Glass-Steagall Act: 1933 Law Stirs 2016 Presidential Race". Sanders' reinstatement would take away the $20 + trillion of speculation toys (all our bank accounts) from big banking.  But even this would perhaps be too little too late.  The point to consider is this: the era of the power of the president over our financial cycles has ended.  Getting it back may involve more radical upheaval than a US president can muster.

We would have to have a Reagan Revolution in every major country in the world, but even that would not solve the massive delevering cycle and global debt resolution problems we now must endure.  This problem did not exist in 1982.  So the unruly Trump/Sanders hoards are now a budding revolution not so much against big government, but against the new socialism of big "Wall Street" - the perversion of what free market capitalism used to be.  Main Street is becoming incensed by it, and this election campaign is showing it.

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Apple and Tech and the Market, Oh My

(Note: I initially published this article a week ago, before Apple's report.  Since then, their results moved the stock strongly along the bear leadership path I outlined - from $105 to $92)

This Tuesday evening, what is arguably the biggest, most successful, most loved, and most widely held company on earth gives us its quarterly report.  I speak of Apple and, while I don't own it or even pay much attention to quarterly reports in general, I will be watching this one.  I am mostly a technical analyst, and AAPL is at an interesting place right now.

I don't pay much attention to quarterly eps for several good reasons.  Most all of the "financial engineering" and creative bookkeeping that goes on is focused on quarterly eps numbers, because that's what most people care about.  But that also makes them the least telling about how the company is really doing, in my view.  I look at multi year patterns in cash flow, EBITDA, revenue, and the market's technical opinion on a stock.

As for the direction of the broad market, I look at technicals, of course, but I also look at leader groups, because they are a very trustworthy tell. Like clockwork, certain leaders turn ahead of the broad market.  For the last couple years, as I have shown in previous articles, key leader groups have been doing a pronounced bearish turn - the financials (European banks in particular), the Russell 2000 small caps, high yield debt, etc.  These groups all confirm what things like aggregate corporate revenue and successful forward looking summations like the ECRI lead indicators all show.  All this reliable data is carefully avoided by the hard working men and women at the Fed:

Getting back to Apple, they could be considered a "lead group" just by the shear reach of their products.  Although I am not a stockholder, I plan on my next computer being an Apple.

This company has not just made the best communication devices in the world, but they have been a very well run business for 20 years now.  If you look at how the stock behaved during the last bear market, you see a remarkable leadership to the upside:

The 140/200 day ema is a good divider of bull and bear markets, and when they cross, we should pay attention.  Apple didn't do the bear cross until October, 2008 and sprang back to a bull market way ahead of the broad market, hitting new highs before 2009 was done with.

So what's up with this leadership now?  Well - not so much:

Charging into October, 2014, the broad market was hit hard, but it barely phased AAPL.  But then a subtle change began taking shape.  When the SPX formed a roll-over top in mid 2015, AAPL went meekly along for the ride.  It snapped back from the August panic better than the market, but since then, it has, for the first time in over a decade, begun to be a drag on the SPX.  It did not go anywhere near a new high in the November rally nor in the current rally.

Does this technical take have any roots in Apple's fundamentals?  I refer you to an overview at TalkMarkets where this change in leadership is presented in eps numbers:

The article, saying in its title that Apple is to be the "biggest drag" on SPX tech,  shows a phase change from Apple (blue bars) pulling up the tech average (green bars) to Apple pulling down the tech average.  The current blue bar is estimate.

As for top line, if the anticipated revenue (anticipated by Apple) of around $52 billion materializes, it would be the first quarterly sales decline in 13 years.  Think of how crude our phones were in 2002. 13 years is essentially the modern era of Apple.  If that quarterly rate of sales were to persist for the next three quarters, it would be a drop of nearly 12% from the last full fiscal year.  For a company that has more than doubled its sales over the last four years, that would be a bitter pill for investors to swallow.  Unless the global economy picks up quickly, it's hard to imagine a snappy return to big sales growth.

Having said all that bad stuff, the stock is not an overpriced balloon in search of a pin, like so many these days.  For the aforementioned revenue growth of the last four years, you are paying a price-to-sales multiple of just 2.6 - very cheap compared to the industry average (as defined by Morningstar) of 2.0, and the PE is just 11 for the disappointing earnings.  Even if you believe we are heading into a bear market for awhile, you could put this on your short list of longs to hold while waiting for better conditions if you don't care to try to time the possible bear.  This is especially true since Apple installed a dividend of around 2% - quite competitive in our new NIRP world.  Apple will live to fight another day.

I, for one, am going to be interested in the behavior of AAPL this week.  The stock has already clearly broken down out of the current rally.  If the quarter doesn't propel the stock back up through $115, its bear leader status won't change.  It really will be in limbo if it doesn't go through $130 and retake the baton of leadership.  And even if it were to do that, it would be one leader group saying "bull" while all the others continue to say "bear".  But maybe Apple will be the first to change its tune.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Are We At A Fear Fatique Juncture In The VIX ?

We've all heard a steady drumbeat of negative developments about oil, bad debt, sluggish economies, blah, blah for well over a year now.  And we've seen some unsettling rallies in the VIX associated with all this, but now the AAII Sentiment Survey has just a 24% bearish reading.  The mean is about 30% with one standard deviation from the mean being 21%.  So we are nearing this extreme level of lack of fear in the stock markets right now.  The last time it was one standard deviation or more too low was back in November - when we should have been very afraid.

Have all these problems that have gradually edged the average value of the VIX up for many months now, magically gone away?  No, if you bother to check, they are actually getting worse, as I
have discussed in some of my recent articles.  Are we in denial? Are we inebriated?  Just what is our mental state? (click on images to enlarge)

As for substance and keen analytical insight, we tend to think of the fear index like we think of a manic-depressive teenager in love.  But can the behavior of the VIX really signal anything about the forthcoming behavior of the market?  Looking at a VIX vs SPX chart such as the one below from The Palantir Blog, one could surmise just that by simply paying attention to the slope of the VIX:

Here we see that the VIX will change to an up-slope in its base or support values between spikes as we approach important market tops.  And what's really bizarre is that the VIX collapses out of that up-slope just before the really bad market thrashings begin.  More on that later.

Even better than the stock market at foretelling recessions is the ECRI  (Economic Cycles Research Institute)  Weekly Lead Index, which looks at the economic cycle components that turn before the rest.  This index has a remarkable record if you just look at the trends it makes:

The trend breaks come months before the stock market turns and the recessions.  How do these trend changes compare with the above VIX trend changes?  Since the VIX wasn't invented until 1993, we will just look at the last two great bear turns - 2000 and 2007:

The VIX changes in trend preempt even the ECRI changes in trend, suggesting an even better economic information discounting ability than one of the most respected economic predictors around.

Why do we typically see a collapse of the VIX below its long, slow uptrend just in front of the main collapse in a bear stock market as mentioned above?  The only thing I can figure is a kind of fear fatigue where investors know there are serious problems developing for the market, but they are just tired of hearing about them.  They maybe just start viewing it all as the wall of worry that seems to permeate markets most of the time.  That justifies investing in bull markets, which climb the proverbial wall of worry, but it also seems to be a repeating pattern in approaching bear markets.  We are seeing a repeat of the VIX reaction to the approach of the 2002 market collapse and the 2008 episode:

The upward sloping support line shows a gradually increasing unease with investors over a period of many months, then a massive VIX spike into the classic pennant formation.  Then there follows a break of the pennant back down to the more gradual encroachment of fear.  Here the market becomes tranquil, sentiment is rosy, and investors are tired of hearing "wolf".  This Sounds a lot like the present.

But this appears to be the danger point when a turn back up in fear begins.  In 2002 and 2008, there is one more fade of the VIX back to the support trend before the major stock collapse begins.  We are at the first touch of the trend line now in the 2016 version of this pattern.  There is certainly no guarantee of a repeat of the past, but markets do tend to move in repeating patterns controlled by human psychology.  And the fear index is certainly one of the most psychological of them all.

James Picerno just published an article "US Financial System Risk Eases After Reaching a 4-Year High" summing up the current "stress test" the Fed regional banks publish.  I want to focus on the one done at Cleveland:

He shows some of the other banks' indices in this article, which do not show as dire a run-up currently as this one.  But if you examine those other graphs, you see that nearly all of the severe run-up they did in the last recession was well after the start of the recession, providing essentially no early warning. The Cleveland tabulation seems to be a little more excitable and ahead of the curve, even if it did give a false signal in 2011.

Picerno also recently posted "Macro-Markets Risk Index Signals New US Recession" where this markets based economic lead indicator shows its first recession signal since 2007:

Note this is also a lead indicator, shooting up over the 50% tipping point before the start of a recession.  It gave a false signal in 1997, signaling only the stock crash, but no recession. However, it was not faked out in the 2011 troubles, not even going anywhere near the 10% mark.

And if you like trouble indexes that weren't faked out in 2011, consider another fear index besides the VIX.  Credit Suisse has what they call the Credit Suisse Fear Barometer:

Despite all the PIIGS stress on the global financial system, this fear index remained unperturbed and, in fact, went down during this time.  But as we go into 2016, this index has gone the opposite direction of the VIX.  Note that, since mid 2014, this also seems to lead the VIX in fear spikes as in the October, 2014 market sell-off and the August, 2015 sell-off.  Could it be front running the next sell-off ?

It is worth noting that the Fear Barometer is a much braver fear index than the VIX, having thumbed its nose at all the 2011 dangers and remaining more unruffled in the sell-off of last August.  In fact, if you take a longer view of this index versus the VIX and compare for bravery, as in this piece from Phil'sStockWorld, you see this:

Not even the horrors of 2008 could run this fear index up.  But now, it's more afraid than ever before.  The above article, by Tyler Durden "Goldman Questions Rally, Fears Looming Event Risk Amid Record VIX Longs" explains two differences between the VIX and the CS index.  The Fear Barometer measures the relative put/call volume whereas the VIX just measures total volume.  And the Fear Barometer is geared to a 3 month outlook whereas the VIX is pummeled by every wind of rumor every minute.

Whether you go by the brave Fear Barometer or the slopes of the jumpy VIX, the market's fear gauges are registering danger in concert with the best economic cycling tools available (this does not include Fed Speak).  Adjusting appropriate hedging screws in portfolios would be wise.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

The State Of The Rally

The 13% rally of the SPX and Dow from the "Dimon bottom" of February 11 has been most impressive and has converted a lot of bears into at least neutrality.  This week's NAII Sentiment Survey: 34% bullish, 42% neutral, 24% bearish.  Of such are tops made.  But the market is chugging along with the rally still intact, isn't it?

Well, if you believe, as I do, that our markets are being led by the big banks and their derivative troubles, especially in Europe, you better take a look at the following.  Things are going from bad to worse with the banks.  NIRP is crippling a beast already wounded by the quantum leap lower in commodity prices.  An article at Seeking Alpha states "NIRP Is Absolutely Crushing Big Parts Of The Finance World".

Negative interest rates are the antidote to a normal, healthy free enterprise system.  Banks are forced away from giving savers a return and making their money loaning to economic activity with a normal yield curve.  What are they forced toward?  They now have to devote their full attention to what Glass-Steagall bared them from doing after the banking fiasco of the 1930s, "investment banking", playing with commodity and all manner of toxic derivatives, which is what got us into this very mess to begin with! Yes, that's just what we need.

As I pointed out before back in October, the key outfit to watch for clues as to what might happen next is Deutsche Bank, the lead bank of Germany, the lead economy in all of Europe, the leader as we go into a socialist style banking takeover of our global economy.  They have replaced the Swastika with the Derivative Pricing Model.  Our entire free capitalist world is held captive to how these models play out, and, in particular, how they control our currencies.

My fellow militant Austrian economist, Jeffrey Snider, just wrote an article at SA called "Credit Suisse And Deutsche Bank Still At The Forefront (Just Where They Don't Want To Be)".   Here he quotes a mea culpa from Credit Suisse on their sipping of the Bernanke Kool-Aid with heavy bets on returning to normal economic growth in the Emerging Markets after the 2008 crisis. Tiajane Thiam, CEO of Credit Suisse, is giving a euphemistic review of Q4 that is paraphrased by Snider thusly:
In other words, the bank is admitting that it messed up in chasing high yield and EM credit and all the activities that surround them, vowing now to leave those areas as quickly as practical.  It isn't so easy, though, as Thain's most recent ante in more lost investment banking jobs suggests.

Credit Suisse is also joined in that regard by the others that followed this policy success vision.  Deutsche Bank, for example, was just put on negative ratings watch by Moody's. The ratings agency sees the same as Credit Suisse - that the strategy once followed and having been done leaves only further pain to undo it.
 "At the forefront" as Snider says, is indeed where DB is leading us ever onward: (click on images to enlarge)

The state of the rally with our leader is not good.  The rally off the Dimon banking bottom of February 11 did not go anywhere near a new high as has the Dow, and didn't even make it to the top of the bear megaphone progression, and now it is clearly breaking the rally to the downside.  As with the Dow, this rally has no buy volume with sell volume dominating.  I did a study on this bear megaphone progression pattern, which most of the big banks are now following. It has been the defining feature of every major US bear market since 1850.  If we follow DB's lead in this rally, it will soon roll over into a major new down leg.  As for Credit Suisse, our co-leader, it is even worse:

It is worth noting that nearly all these major banks peaked way before all other major averages.  And they actually look more like the CRB commodities index than anything else.  In any rally in this day and age, you want to see strong leadership from the financials.  If you check the other banks, you don't see a much brighter picture of where we're headed.

Make no mistake, we are getting into a market situation where the money flows of the big banks are taking over from GDP numbers, earnings, employment reports and the things that are supposed to operate markets.  Many would argue that the aforementioned numbers have already been removed from the real economy anyway. But the derivative kingdom has staged a coup and is now calling the shots in the stock market, superseding economic numbers, real or fraudulent.  This is a point Jeffrey Snider is making pretty clear in tracking the dollar shortage mess now getting to very dangerous levels. I wrote an article on this and its relation to gold and showed this amazing correlation Snider points out between the goings on at the big banks and our recent market selloffs:

The repo chart Snider shows has the dollar shortage recently doing a moon shot to the highest level since Lehman, 2008.  The sloshing around of currencies at the big banks seems to be controlling the value of your favorite stock more than the employment report or about anything else these days.  The out-of-control complexity of our credit based currencies and derivative linkages is what mostly matters anymore.  The dollar shortage is beginning to seriously disrupt business in many countries, mainly the heavy commodity exporters, as this CNBC piece details.  The list of such dollar shortage crises is growing.

The causes for this mushrooming menace in the currency markets are many, complex, convoluted, not understood well or reported by many.  And I certainly don't understand all the mechanisms involved.  But allow me, as someone who is viewing the forest, not the trees, to make an observation.

Our "money" over the last few decades has become purely a complicated series of credit transactions among banks, not based nowadays on much else besides creditworthiness.  As JP Morgan is famous for saying, back in the sensible days of sound currency, "Gold is money.  Everything else is credit".  Thus the Moody's talk of downgrades for Deutsche Bank and the like is naturally having a jarring effect in the credit-crazed currency markets.  The $700 trillion derivatives "bomb" that was partially detonated in 2008 may see more fireworks in this latest counterparty risk obsession in currencies.
Deutsche Bank, our fearless leader in the technical condition of the stock market, is also the world leader in derivatives.

Nearly a hundred years ago, after many years of looking the other way with the creeping policy of appeasement, it took a horrendous world war to stamp out the socialist rats enslaving the German people.  Now, a computer algorithm version is taking over our growing taxes, the bills in our wallet, and our right to a growing economy.  As I showed in Gold And Derivatives these Gestapo goons are even in the process of laying claim to your bank account to pay for their derivative indiscretions in the future.

In 1943, the Nazis were winning the war.  After Pearl Harbor, Japan ruled the Pacific and we were bracing for an invasion at California.  Hitler had drawn up the recently discovered construction plans for death camp locations in a divided America, the west half governed by Japan and the east half, with all the Jews, governed by Hitler.  IBM was developing the first computer that would be used by the Navy to calculate its gunnery.  Without the undivided focus and outrage of the world in the war effort, with every company making war parts and nearly every mom helping while her man was away fighting, the tide may not have been turned in 1943.  Now, our global socialists with reckless derivatives as their main weapon are looking to enslave, not just the German people, but anyone who must pay taxes and has a bank account connected to a computer.  They are farther ahead than the Nazis were in 1943, only with the world fast asleep.  What's it going to take this time to stamp out these cyber socialists?

Let's all hope the all-knowing, super-hero Derivative Pricing Model continues to solve all our problems for us.  It has gotten us this far.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

A Technical Note

The rally from February 11, the "Dimon bottom" where JP Morgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon made a large insider purchase of his bank's shares, is looking good to a lot of investors. The latest AAII Sentiment Survey shows only 24% bearish thinking right now. Count me part of the 24%. (click on images to enlarge):

Here we have a look at by far the most bullish of all the major markets around the world, the Dow 30, and even it looks like crap. This is not what you want to see at the start of a major new leg up. The buy volume is sadly absent. A new top appears to be forming short of a new high. And the rally looks like a carbon copy of the previous one in November that devolved into the January collapse.

On a positive note, we are well above the 200 day moving average, while the 50 day appears to be perplexed by all this, first doing a positive "golden cross" in mid December, then immediately doing the "death cross" in January and now sloped back to positive. Well, I ignore the 50/200 simple moving average thing as meaningless noise and look primarily at formations and the 140/200 day ema. There we see the following:

The 140/200 ema did a negative cross clear back in mid September and has remained in a negative crossover. We appear to be bound by a downsloping resistance trend. The volume since the September cross has been overwhelmingly dominated by selling.

Having said all this, I suspect the Dow 30 will briefly surge to a new all time high amid much bullish fanfare while all the little followed broader averages, the Russell 2000 in particular, creep up to much lower resistance levels before turning lower. This narrowing breadth of the good behavior down to just the 30 stocks of the Dow is very typical of the last stages of a multi-year advance. But now even the action of these last 30 in the bunker is looking weak.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

What the Approaching Dollar Liquidity Crunch Implies About Gold

Jeffrey Snider of Alhambra Investment Partners just published a piece at Talk Markets and at Seeking Alpha, "Huge Repo Warning", wherein he alerts us to a sudden and severe US dollar shortage, the likes of which we haven't seen since 2008. He monitors the Repo fail rate, which tracks failure to deliver on contracts for people buying the dollar: (click on images to enlarge)

This measure of dollar shortage has just now leaped past the September, 2011 spike to the 2008 crisis level. This reflects problems in the US. But it may not all be fears over the US.

This January 12 article from the Wall Street Journal may go a long way toward explaining the disruptive dollar shortage - it is titled "Chinese Consumers Race To Buy Dollars As Yuan Slides".
During the weekend, ICBC received an urgent notification from China’s central bank warning of a dollar shortage, he said. The tight supply means ICBC customers applying to change yuan for dollars on Tuesday have to wait four days to complete the transaction, rather than the normal one day, he said. Another person who works in retail banking at a leading Hong Kong bank in Shanghai said she estimates the amount of U.S. dollars bought by Chinese residents in December is roughly double what it was in June, the last peak.
These jams come and go, but Snider, who has been watching this dollar thing like a hawk for awhile, seems to think the magnitude of this latest liquidity crunch is an urgent warning for stocks. His conclusion:
It is difficult to accept this level of fails as anything else other than a liquidity warning as all the prior versions had been ...  And it’s not like repo is the only indication of a desperate financial shortage.

In fact, that is the growing consensus among the deeper, internal eurodollar indications. From swap spreads to cross currency basis swaps to countries literally begging for dollars, they all point to the same imbalance – a dollar shortage.

It seems yet another warning that the financial world is “on the clock”... With a countdown already in place from whatever the PBOC had been doing in January (and this very well could be related to that), it would be truly a bad sign if those clocks synchronized especially heading into the final two weeks of a quarter and the typical window dressing illiquidity space. I would not be surprised at all if this surge in repo fails was the starter pistol firing to sound the beginning of dollar run #3
To illustrate what he means by "dollar run #3" I drew a comparison between some previous episodes of dollar shortages he graphs in his article and the related actions in the stock market. I use the NYSE composite as a broader average and a lead group, as it peaked early in the present decline.

Dollar hoarding looks to be a growing problem and very tightly correlated to the timing of severe stock market sell-offs. Bouts of dollar hoarding have precisely accompanied each of the two global stock sell-offs of our current downturn, not to mention the possible foreshock to the bear turn back in October, 2014. Snider sees the late 2014 event as just that, a foreshock. He notes the rising dollar back then along with the top in a lot of markets - think CRB dropping off a 3 year plateau, European banks, the US transports. He pegged the October dollar hoarding run as "a clear warning sign".

There seems to be a growing propensity for safe haven scrambles developing.  And the
rocketing repo fails shown above strongly suggest the aforementioned run #3 will be underway in the downward megaphone progression pictured above.

This megaphone progression has been the defining characteristic of every major US bear market  since 1850. You can look at all seven of these cases in an article at my web site. I gave it an alarmist title similar to Snider's "Huge Repo Warning" - "An Important Market Message Is Now Blaring". Both our alarms sync together very well. We are approaching the upper reaches of the megaphone in what is probably a bear market rally, just as the most severe dollar crunch since 2008 arrives.

This all has a huge bearing on gold in that, in any flight to safety, massive amounts of money get divided between many things, but the USD and gold are the two main players. So it behooves us to consider the relative size of these two markets:

The size of the investable gold market including miners is about $2.6 trillion. The vast majority of forex trading, about 85%, trades the USD. This pictograph clearly shows that, when there is a traffic jam in the dollar, it is a big traffic jam. If we were to picture the $700 trillion derivatives market in the above graph, there would not be room on the page to show it. The trading turnover in the dollar is around 6.5%, for gold it's about 2.7%. If you do the math, that's roughly 4 times the supply/demand tightness factor for money wanting into gold, everything else being equal.

When things are not normal, as in the current, dangerous dollar shortage, it could divert much more flight-to-safety inflows into gold's already much tighter market for new money. The popularity of the dollar as a safe haven the last couple years is greatly helped by the simple fact that it has been in a rip roaring climb, and gold - not so much. But the dollar climb is seriously weakening, especially since the whole Fed rate normalization scheme of the last couple years is now being called out on the carpet. The Fed is viewed more and more as being caught in the same boat as the rest of the central banks. And the dollar may become more and more viewed as just another currency and not so much a safe haven.

This all may go a long way toward explaining the sudden rejuvenation of the gold markets since January. The dollar transaction fail amount shown above is $883 billion - that's 18% of the whole forex market and about 3 days worth of trading. This current illiquidity could result in major moves in gold if we embark soon on the next leg down in a bear stock market, as this massive dollar trade tries to squeeze into the much smaller gold markets.

What's even more compelling in relative market size in this diverter valve movement is a look at the gold miners. The $2.6 trillion "investable gold market" includes the miners, but that is a miniscule $200 billion. The higher quality miners are viewed as a superior way to invest in gold as they provide good leverage to the gold price in their operating results. The miners also provide some insurance against any possible government interventions into gold ownership and pricing in an economic crisis, as happened in 1933, when FDR confiscated all US personal gold at $21.67/oz and then declared it worth $35/oz. The owners of the miners didn't care:

So the gold industry rightly sees more than its fair share of safe haven inflows if there is any USD/gold change. Considering the dollar/gold miner market size ratio is about 22, we could say that good things can come in small packages:

Add to this the extreme low we are at in this age for investor exposure to gold in this time of building currency disarray, and you have a formula for a possible dollar/gold tsunami:

The major currencies of today will go by the wayside before our unsustainable debt situation is cleared up, as all preceding currencies have done - except for gold:

The massive and pressing dollar shortage problem could soon be a gold shortage problem. The sharp jumps in the gold miners we are seeing could have a lot of follow through.

Monday, March 14, 2016

An Important Market Message Is Now Blaring

I've outlined some very dependable markers of bear turns now developing in our stock market in some recent articles.  I don't like being a such sour puss as I mainly like analyzing individual stocks and seeing them climb. All I ask of the market is to leave my individual stocks alone. A flat, boring market is my favorite. But sometimes there is such a concentration of downside risk, you have to take measures against a market intrusion.

A bear attack is looking likely. One of the many signs is the megaphone. And I don't mean the device the Fed is holding up to its chin to say "everything is fine" to all the investing world.

The message from the central banks is confusing at best. With the US Fed insinuating four rate hikes this year while the rest of the world is scrambling into absurd negative rate territory, one has to wonder just how isolated the US can really be when 60% of the revenue in our major indexes is coming from outside the US.

The megaphone I am referring to is a technical formation. Like all good chart formations, they collect and digest information better than the Fed or anyone, and reflect the historically constant human psychology involved in buying and selling. I listen closely to these messages.

If you look over all the really bad bear markets since 1850, defined as those where the loss was 50% or greater, you have seven of them. Let's start with an early US bad bear, the 1852-1857 sell down. This one doesn't readily pop to mind when "really bad bears" are discussed. But a Wall Street Journal piece written March 6, 2009, three days before the bottom, discussing how '08 stacks up in history, features it prominently. It pointed out that we had to fall way more in 2009 to catch up with the #1 fall in history, 1929-1932 (-83%) and the #2 fall, 1852-1857 (-66%) inflation adjusted. Of course, we didn't do that in March of 2009, so the 1852 bear kept its # 2 all time ranking. So what did this bad one look like? (click on images to enlarge)

That's right - it looked like a megaphone. This technical formation is one that I look for in stocks, because they usually break violently to the upside, when the slope of the megaphone is down and there are positive technical indicators at the low end of the formation. But this is usually after a severe thrashing to the downside.

So #2 was a megaphone, what about #1? Well, sort of. The Crash of 1929 was just that - a crash. A bear market, which transpires over years, is not a crash. Thus the crash of 1987 was not a bear, and the crash in 1929 was not a bear. As I discussed in "A Study In Crashology" 1929 was just a big correction to an over bought condition (like 1987) but the fallout from this in the banking world caused the severe economic downturn, which was a bona fide bear. This was an exception to the rule that bull markets end with a whimper, not a bang. Bulls typically do a gentle roll over into a bear. So, how did all this look?

We see that, after the atypical bang at the end of the 1920s bull market, we had a big, near 50% recovery, and many felt the economy was back on track. Then the market did indeed settle into a megaphone as the banking problems took over heading into the massive bank failures of 1933-34. This diagram shows how the market gyrations get bigger as the megaphone progresses. Each bear market rally was progressively bigger percent wise, like an amplifying sound wave. Technical analysis is all about the message of the market. With these mega-bears, the message seems to get blared louder than normal.

There have been five other lesser bear markets, but of major magnitude, being of a 50% or more decline, since 1850. The next one was The Panic of 1907:

This was a two stage megaphone bear with the years prior to the actual panic included in an overall bear decline. Notice that the market announced the panic well in advance with a megaphone. Then there was the 1937-38 bear, which came after a five year bull in the Depression:

This was another two stage megaphone bear before the final low was put in. If you would have examined a chart in late September, 1937, a clear megaphone was clearly saying, "much more trouble ahead". Probably the next bad bear we think of is 1973-74. The decline was as bad as 2007-08 and the recession was one the worst ever. The recovery was weak and led to "the misery index" being a big election campaign item in the 1980 elections. How did this market look?

This one was not as sharply defined, but the overall pattern was there. What about the bear markets of our time we all know and hate - 2000 and 2007? As I've shown before, they were both of the typical, gentle roll over type. Let's look at 2000:

It was a very sharply defined megaphone with the brutal 2002 meltdown being the last trip down. And 2007?

This was a higher beta megaphone than its predecessors. I would like to point out that the moving average pair I'm showing above is the 140 ema and 200 ema (exponential moving average) which is the best divider I have found between a bull and a bear market. When it consistently acts as support, it's a bull. When it consistently acts as resistance, it's a bear. And it usually resides in the vicinity of the upper reaches of these major megaphones.

That's seven out of seven of the mega-bears in US history that have had this megaphone market message seemingly announcing their arrival. To look at where our current market may be headed, I want to look at probably the best leader index, the small caps of the Russell 2000. This index has been telegraphing the Dow very well lately, and here is how it looks now:

The leading transports (TRANQ) are also showing a nascent megaphone.

I say nascent, because the Dow is just a few percentage points off its high and has a long way down to go if this is indeed a major bear market beginning. The present rally looks like it should run some more to test and retest the moving average pair and the top of the megaphone, maybe to 1140 on the Russell, around 2040 on the SPX. But this may be a good area to lighten long positions that you don't want in a bear market. Don't be like the three monkeys above, be a little worried, take precautions - but be happy.