Posts Tagged ‘quantitative easing’

Will there be a surprise rally in the USD?

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

Everyone knows that the US Federal Reserve is going to print money (quantitative easing) in November. Hence, the financial markets have already priced that in. To them, this is a foregone conclusion. Surely, Bernanke is going to print trillions of dollars right? There?s no way he?s not going to do that right?

At this point, investors should be alert. When almost everyone thinks that a future outcome is a slam-dunk certainty, it?s the time when the market is most vulnerable to a significant setback. Since everyone is expecting that Bernanke is going to print so and so amount of money, and if it turns out that he is not printing as much as expected, the reaction by the financial markets can be savage. Any hints of dithering by Bernanke will be very negative for asset prices in the very short term.

Surely it wouldn?t happen right?

Well, who knows.

As the Americans accused the Chinese of manipulating their yuan, the Chinese will be accusing the Americans of manipulating their dollar through money-printing devaluation. Perhaps behind the scenes, both sides are negotiating a middle road. Maybe the Chinese will promise the Americans that they will appreciate their currency a little more than expected and the Americans will promise the Chinese that they will print a little less than expected. That way, the Chinese can cool their economy and pop their speculative property bubble while the Americans can benefit from a sell-off in gold and commodity prices and trigger a mad scramble for US Treasuries, which the US government will happily oblige because they are in need of cash to borrow.

Be ready for surprises!

Bernanke warming up the printing press

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

Last month, we wrote in Prepare to pull the trigger on speculating! about the signs to watch out for the timing to speculate. Well, the sign arrived over the weekend.

Last Friday, Ben Bernanke gave the strongest hint about money printing. As this article reported,

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has laid out four "unconventional" policy options to boost the US economy.

Top of the list is more "quantitative easing" – mass purchases of debt.

"Quantitative easing? sounds technical, but it basically means printing money. In another article, Bernanke is talking tough against deflation,

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday that the central bank would not sit idly and let the U.S. economy sink into a period of deflation.

"The Federal Open Market Committee will strongly resist deviations from price stability in the downward direction," Bernanke said in a speech opening the Fed’s annual summer policy retreat.

The Fed would be "vigilant and proactive" if inflation falls by a significant amount, he said, though he downplayed concern that the economy would fall back into another downturn, or a double-dip recession.

As we wrote in our book, How to buy and invest in physical gold and silver bullion,

The United States, with ?helicopter? Ben Bernanke at the helm of the Federal Reserve, is committed to money printing to solve America?s economic woes. To the extent that the US dollar is the world reserve currency, it will affect the rest of the world.

In essence, for investors who still believe in deflation, Bernanke is saying, ?Try me. I dare you.?

Prepare to pull the trigger on speculating!

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Back in When to start speculating again?, we mentioned that

When governments do ?something? about the deflationary pain, it will be a signal to shuffle your money back into speculation.

So, what will be the signs to watch out for?

Just a month ago, RBS warned their clients to get read for this:

Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS, is advising clients to read the Bernanke text very closely because the Fed is soon going to have to the pull the lever on “monster” quantitative easing (QE)”.

Marc Faber reckoned that it will happen soon and has given a rough time-frame…

When the money spigot turns on again, that’s the sign to start speculating again (note: speculate at your own risk). For those who are new, please read Bernankeism and hyper-inflation to understand the context of this article.

Will governments be forced to exit from ‘stimulus?’

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Currently, there’s a belief in the financial markets that the worst of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is over and that it’ll be blue sky from now on. Indeed, it is possible that the the US economy may see a positive GDP growth in the next few quarters to come.

But here, as contrarians, we see a different picture. As we quoted the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Bank for International Settlements (BIS) warning on stimulus spendings, the ‘green shoots’ of growth is largely contributed to government bailouts, ‘stimulus’ spendings, money printing and cheaper money (e.g. zero interest rates in US).

Make no mistake about this: Government interventions cannot be sustained forever without increasing negative consequences in the longer term. Governments cannot ‘stimulate’ the economy. In fact, the word ‘stimulus’ is the most misleading word in economics lexicon because it conveys the idea of a surgeon ‘stimulating’ a heart into self-sustained beating. In reality, what government interventions did was to put the economy on a crutch. The longer the economy leans on the government crutch, the more dependent it will be on the government. Eventually, the government will become the economy. For those who haven’t already, we encourage you to read Preserving jobs at all costs leads to economic stagnation and Are governments mad with ?stimulating??.

Letting the economy lean on crutches indefinitely will result in decreasing economic health as time goes by. Furthermore, there’s always the risk that the side-effects will pressure governments to remove the crutches. As we quoted the BIS in Bank for International Settlements (BIS) warning on stimulus spendings,

Perhaps the largest short-term risk associated with the expansionary policies is the possibility of a forced exit. Monetary and fiscal authorities of the major economies have so far been relatively unconstrained in their ability to follow expansionary policies. This need not last. An extended period of stagnating economic activity could undermine the credibility of the policies in place. Governments may find it hard to place debt if market participants expect the underlying balance to remain negative for years to come. Under such circumstances, funding costs could rise suddenly, forcing them to cut spending or raise taxes significantly.

How will a pressure for a “forced exit” from crutches (bailouts, stimulus, money printing and cheaper money) happen? We can look no further than China as an example where ‘stimulus’ is most effective. As we wrote in Will August 2009 be the top for the year in China?,

Forcing credit growth in this case does not result in economic ?stimulation.? Instead, the result was a dangerous asset price bubble. Apparently, the Chinese government flipped its position and decided to rein in the bubble before it’s too late.

China is right now in a dilemma. Turning the credit tap off will result in many projects failing, which in turn will result in bad debts. Not turning the credit tap off will result in price inflation and asset price bubbles.

The problem with economic crutches is that there will be negative side-effects. It is only a matter of time before excess liquidity leaked into asset and commodity prices. Initially, this may not be a problem. But as we saw last year (see Who is to blame for surging food and oil prices?), this will eventually result in acute problems of price inflation (unless the next deflation pressure comes, for which it will be déjà vu again). If governments decide to withdraw the economic crutches, they risk letting the already weakening economy fall into deflation. If they decide not to withdraw them, they risk letting acute price inflation run amok.

What is likely to happen is that governments will attempt to walk on the middle ground by pretending to ‘fight’ inflation (e.g. raising interest rates too slowly and talk tough on inflation) and support the economy at the same time, hoping that the economy will turn out fine. It may work initially, but it’s a matter of time before the public will see through it.

Tougher times is ahead for everyone.

Looting tax-payers with the Geithner plan

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

Back in December 2008, Ben Bernanke was considering whether to print money (see Bernanke ticking off another inflation trick- buying Treasury securities). Last week, the Fed finally pulled the trigger. The reaction in the currency market was swift- the US dollar was sold down.

Today, US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private-Investment-Program (PPIP) plan to revive the banking system. It was portrayed as the best-of-both-world type of plan because being a partnership between the public and private sector, the ‘expertise’ of the private sector will be utilised to value toxic assets. The reaction from the equity market was swift- the Dow Jones rallied more than 6% in one day.

From this, we can see that the government will do anything and everything to try to ‘cure’ the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). But no matter what they do, these two fundamental truth remains: (1) There’s no such thing as a free lunch- there’ll be painful losses and (2) Someone has to pay for it. So, who’s the one paying for all these losses? No prize for guessing- all of us, the tax-payers.

In the first case, printing of money sounds like a free lunch. But in reality, as we said before in How to secretly rob the people with monetary inflation?, the tax-payers will have to foot the bill eventually, in the form of price inflation.

In the second case, let us describe Geithner’s plan with a given example:

  1. Suppose you are a bank with a toxic asset that has $100 face value. Let’s say, the market is only willing to pay $20 for your ‘asset.’ What can you do?
  2. Under the Geithner’s plan, you approach the FDIC.
  3. The FDIC will auction your ‘asset.’ Now, this is a funny auction. To understand how funny it is, read on.
  4. Let’s say the highest bid by an investor is $84.
  5. The FDIC will lend the investor $72. This loan is a non-recourse loan. If the investor defaults, the FDIC cannot go after the investor’s other assets.
  6. The remaining $12 will be split between the investor and the Treasury. That is, the investor will pay $6 while the Treasury will pay the other $6.
  7. That toxic asset will be the play-thing of the investor (under the watchful eyes of the FDIC). Any profit from the sale of the toxic asset will be shared between the investor and the Treasury.

No matter how the government cut it, most of the risks are dumped on to the tax-payers. For the investor, it is like a cheap call option or a highly leveraged non-recourse margin loan at a very low interest rate.