The Flight to Food….

“All over the world, food is causing trouble. Why? Not because there is too much of it or too little, but because it has gone way up in price.Why has it gone up? Well, for one reason, Ben Bernanke and other monetary authorities are pushing more money into the world financial system. The cash has to go somewhere. Much of it seems to be finding its way into the commodities markets – including soft commodities, notably food. In other words, worldwide inflation of food prices is a monetary phenomenon, as Milton Friedman might have put it, not a feature of the weather. But rather than attack the cause of inflation, the authorities are aiming squarely at its consequences.

Of course, there are other reasons for food price increases. There are a lot more people in the world than there used to be. And the new people have to eat too. Since many of these new people are entering the ‘middle class’ they have more money to spend on food, so they can bid up prices. And, typically, they want more meat. It takes more land to produce meat than it does to produce grains – putting further pressure prices all up and down the food chain.”

Thus speaks the proprietor of a newsletter in the business of watching financial trends.

Housing Bubble Trouble: Foreigners Keeping the Shine on the Big Apple?

“Meanwhile, anyone who believes that the worst is over for real estate should keep an eye on New York City’s terminally bloated market. It has not crashed yet, but the likelihood that it will seems as certain a bet as that the sun will rise tomorrow. Last week’s report that prices are up while unit sales are down was regarded, incredibly, as evidence that the Big Apple might somehow be immune to the crash that has already spread to most other big cities. We are asked to believe that the high level of foreign ownership is what is keeping NYC’s housing prices buoyant. But if that were true, then how to explain the fact that Citigroup shares, which are heavily owned by foreigners whose pockets are almost infinitely deep, have fallen by nearly 70%?  

In fact, signs of an impending collapse in New York City real estate have been masked by the sale of a relative handful of apartments at exorbitant prices in the $25 million-$40 million range. Despite this, in the broad middle of the market – i.e., run-of-the-mill co-ops valued at $1.5 million to $3 million — buyers have peen pulling back in droves. Under the circumstances, only an imbecile could believe that NYC real estate will somehow weather the devastation of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and hundreds of other financial firms both big and small…..”

Rick Ackerman.

Financial Follies: George Soros on Regulating the Reflexive Markets

A very strange interview of George Soros this evening, by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo (the original, trade-marked “money honey”).

Soros, of course, is the much-billioned currency speculator who’s tanked a few economies in his time with his fancy moves in the markets.

On the plus side: Soros took a bash at the hoary – and completely false – notion of the “efficient market” – the idea (mostly propagated by economic theorists) that the market always tends to equilibrium and fully expresses all economic information in its prices. Instead, he called attention to the tendency, indeed the inevitability, of market action to go to extremes because of crowd psychology. “Reflexivity” is his term for this interactivity of human beings with their environment.

Well, gee, George. That is the insight and copyrighted mantra behind this particular website (mind-body, see?). You could have sent us a hat tip…..

Robert Prechter of Elliot Wave fame, has talked about the same thing. We ourselves prefer the New Age-ey term, intentionality, to reflexivity…..but we’re with Soros’ sentiment. Hear, hear.

On the minus side:

Soros thinks that that means the markets ought to be regulated to limit extremes of crowd emotion.

Hmmmm……we’ll pause here. There are already a posy of mechanisms in place to curb the excesses of sentiment in trading. If something like the infamous “Black Monday” of 1987 happened, trading would be automatically discontinued….

So, what on earth could Soros have in mind?

Seems he likes the Fed’s intervention in the Bear Stearns business. Absolutely the right thing to do, says he, because Bear is “too big to fail,” i.e. , if it did, investors would have lost confidence in the markets.

Well, here’s a thought, George. Maybe investors should lose confidence in these markets.

What’s going on? Looks to me like Soros wants a piece of the same action that J. P. Morgan just got for itself recently.

Next up on the weird-o-meter: Soros is all for the proposed merger of the regulatory mechanism of the stock exchange and that of the commodity exchange. Now, that’s a self-interested proposal, if ever there was one. And, what a surprise, the idea comes from the self-interested ex -CEO of Goldman who’s now at Treasury – Hank Paulson. Paulson was the guy who orchestrated the kick in the pants that got Dick Grasso out of the NYSE and got another Goldmanite in at its head (Eliot Spitzer was the most visible face of this anti-Grasso coup: Karma, anyone?). Part of Hanks’ new Panky would be to reduce the power of the SEC (Spitzer’s old roost, from where he terrorized Wall Street traders – look, the guy wasn’t all bad – and took pot shots at CEO’s – most prominently, “Hank” Greenberg, a Goldman buddy we hear).

And who would take over the SEC’s role? The new regulatory NYSE-CFTC combo and the investment houses themselves…. In other words, Hank (Paulson) says Wall Street will self-regulate.

Now, where did we hear the self-regulation mantra before? Was it in the late 90’s? That’s right. Just before the market began blowing bubbles….

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Back on the positive(with qualifications) side:

Soros is probably talking no more than sense when he advocates the regulation of the multi-trillion dollar derivative market (10 times global GDP).

But the devil is always in the details. There’s so much already in Washington’s greasy little paws that anyone proposing to hand over even more control had better give us the whole diabolical nitty-gritty…

Bucking Up the Buck…

“Steve Hanke, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, agreed that international action, as well as expansionary fiscal policy in Japan and Europe, were needed to help put a floor under the dollar.

Countries including China and Middle East nations that have large holdings of dollars in their reserves should pledge not to talk about diversifying their portfolios while action is being taken to stabilise the U.S. currency, Hanke told the conference.

Gulf countries in addition should stop talking about de-pegging their currencies from the dollar.

“It’s unproductive and creates a great deal of short-term volatility in the dollar,” he told the Credit Suisse Asian investment conference.

Adams said the dollar was likely to remain under pressure for the next few months because of uncertainty about when the U.S. business cycle will bottom out and how far the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates.

But he said the currency would find its footing, as the American economy is still fundamentally stable and the United States is one of few countries that will be able to keep absorbing huge global capital flows….”

More here from Reuters at GATA.org

No-Interest CDs: Putting the ‘Flation back in the Stag….

A lot of people think there’s no inflation yet and that the current scenario is only deflationary. Monetary reserves are contracting, they say. They point to the Fed’s open market operations as a form of adjustment (taking money from banks with bad debt by buying up mortgage debt and giving to banks in good shape through the sale of Treasuries).

Steve Saville points out why their argument is wrong and why inflation exists along with asset deflation:

“Many pundits still treat M1’s growth rate as an important indicator of monetary conditions on the basis that the amount of ‘narrow money’ is supposed to have a substantial influence on the total supply of money due to the famous “money multiplier” effect. In fact, some well-respected analysts have expressed concern that the lack of growth in the narrowest measures of US money supply over the past couple of years means that Fed policy has been excessively restrictive. But these analysts are failing to appreciate that regulatory changes made by the Fed in the early 1990s caused M1 to become a shadow of its former self with respect to its usefulness as a general monetary indicator.

In rough terms, the rules were changed in the early 1990s to allow banks to dramatically reduce the amount of money held in the form of reserves at the Fed by “sweeping” money from checking accounts (components of M1 that are subject to reserve requirements) into savings accounts (non-M1 components of M2 for which there are no reserve requirements). For example, you might think you have a checkable deposit at your local bank, but in the bank’s books you probably have a zero-interest CD (the type of deposit that has no reserve requirement). Whenever one of your checks is presented the bank’s software “sweeps” the relevant amount of money from the zero-interest CD you never knew you had into the checking account you thought you had.

These rule changes have made commercial banks more profitable because money held in reserve at the Fed is money that doesn’t generate income for the banks; and this, of course, is why the changes were made in the first place.”

Steve Saville in The Speculative Investor

Nadeem Walayat on Global Trends in 2008-09

“Major Trends – Inflation, interest rates etc
I am relying on previous analysis that the graph below illustrates on interest rate and inflation expectations in that once the US economy stabalise’s from the dropping like a stone phase, the Fed will reign in inflation during 2009, especially as the high rates of inflation from earlier months leave the 12month indices. The consequences of this is for a US dollar bottom BEFORE the event
– sometime this year and therefore become a disinflationary contributor to inflation during 2009.”

Read more of this interesting analysis at GoldSeek.

National Post: Global Casino Crashes…

“– The U.S. dollar will continue to fall against other currencies.
— Oil will march toward $150 a barrel and other commodity prices will continue to increase, as investors race toward holding real things instead of currencies.
— Gold will march toward $1,500 an ounce as worries about the debt contagion spread.
— Last week, the Euro zone of 15 countries became worth more than the U.S. dollar zone, and will continue to be used as a preferred reserve currency, thus aggravating the U.S. dollar’s decline.
— Central banks outside the U.S. will be forced to cut interest rates as the Americans must to prop up economies.
— Banks and brokers around the world will be shakier and more bailouts — possibly another on Wall Street — will occur.
— Canada’s spoiled chartered banks/brokers will start their whining to merge again, blaming the crisis as another lobbying technique.
— The credit bailout plus the U.S. Presidential election will postpone the bankruptcies, foreclosures and writedowns that must be made in mortgages in order to clean up the housing market. And a lousy housing market means the recession will take root in the U.S. and elsewhere.
— Canada and Australia are lucky. Both will continue to boom, along with commodity prices, and the Canadian dollar will move up in tandem.
— Economics will trump Iraq in the U.S. political contests this summer, forcing McCain to choose Romney as a running mate and the Democrats to sharpen up their CEO cred too.”

More by Diana Francis at The National Post.

Comment:

Since I posted this, the well-staged “rescue” by the Fed has occurred and gold has fallen dramatically, the commodity currencies and commodities along with it.

Is this the end of the PM (precious metals) bull? Probably not. We’re approaching the season when gold sells off, usually; we’ve had such a big run that a technical correction was long overdue. Add to that the intense safe-haven buying of recent months, and a downward move was inevitable. Especially with the dollar putting in its own technical recovery.

Note however, that the dollar’s recovery is only likely to be against the majors, like the Pound and the Euro, and the commodity currencies. Against the Yen and Franc, it’s likely to continue to weaken, with some technical bounces along the way.

Financial Fraud: Banks go from borrow… to beg….to steal

On FOX Business News this morning, former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley said Congress needs to impose a special tax to allow the goverment to step in and buy all the sub-prime-debt in the system. And it needs to do it now.

Yes. That was a former fed governor coming right out with it. Dispensing with the usual palaver about the banks rescuing people, he cut to to the quick with refreshing frankness – time for the people (otherwise known as savers, tax-payers, pensioners, and other assorted naifs and bag-holders) to rescue the banks.

Wall Street Reaps Whirlwind: Bear Stearns mauled; loses 94% value

“As part of the deal, J.P. Morgan Chase, a major Wall Street bank, will buy Bear Stearns for a bargain-basement price, paying $2 a share for a venerable institution that still plays a central role in executing financial transactions. Bear Stearns stock closed at $57 on Thursday and $30 on Friday. J.P. Morgan was unwilling to assume the risk of many of Bear Stearns’s mortgage and other complicated assets, so the Federal Reserve agreed to take on the risk of about $30 billion worth of those investments….” and

“The Fed “is working to promote liquid, well-functioning financial markets, which are essential for economic growth,” Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in a conference call with reporters tonight. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was deeply involved in the talks though not a formal party to them, indicated support for the actions.”

Comment:

For the first time since the Great Depression (The Guardian) the Fed has extended credit to an investment bank (the normal recipients are the commercial banks). Thus falls an 85 year old Wall Street institution, the 5th largest investment bank, losing 94% of it value. Gold moved up $25 on the news and the dollar sank below 71 against an index of major currencies, hitting fresh lows against the Yen and the Euro.

We think J P Morgan, relatively undamaged by the sub-prime poison, is going to get toxic shock syndrome when this baby (a bank one quarter its size) lodges in its gut.
More at the Washington Post.

Stunning news, this, about Bear Stearns, if there could be anything more stunning than last week’s series of desperate deeds on the Street. There was that quarter of a billion infusion of liquidity from the Fed; there was Hank Paulson’s happy talk about a “strong dollar policy” that quickly morphed into a strangled cry for global central bank intervention; there was a slew of recession-worthy statistics on the economic news; there was gold’s lifetime nominal highs over $1000 and the sickeningly swift decline of the dollar. And to cap it all of there was the suspicious telephone sting operation that tripped up NY Governor Eliot Spitzer over long-term use of call girls as overpriced as any mortgage bond — an investigation that issued, of all places, out of the IRS. [As Greg Palast points out, the IRS is part of the Treasury Dept now overseen by ex-Goldmanite, Hank Paulson]. It couldn’t be a coincidence, could it, that Spitzer (the Sheriff of Wall Street) had earlier tangled with a Goldman Sachs chief over his prosecution of giant insurer AG’s CEO Maurice (“Hank” – they’re all Hank these days) Greenberg and and others in high places. All no doubt joined the traders on the floor to have the only chuckle to be had in last week’s preliminary belches from the financial Vesuvius now erupting in full throttle.

Bill Murphy at Le Metropole Cafe notes:

*Thornburg Mortgage was fine one day, bust the next.

*The Carlyle hedge fund was the crème de la crème one day, and tapioca the next.

*Alan Schwartz, chief executive at Bear Stearns, was on CNBC just the other day saying the rumors about Bear’s problems were UNFOUNDED. Today Bear is going bust.

*So, within 2 weeks, three of the most highly regarded financial entities in the US are gonzo.”

More Comment:

And the billion dollar (oops, Yen, Euro, Swissie..take your pick) question is this.

Who goes next? And for how long?

Stay tuned for more shocks from the United States of Zimbabwe….

Gold could go to $3000 this week or it could freeze and fall. But the odds are we are not just in a recession but on the brink of falling off the cliff.

Expect anything. (Note the resignation of Admiral Fallon, a vocal opponent of war with Iran).

None of the candidates really has a clue. They’re doing nothing more than waltzing on the graves of the middle class while promising them ten acres and a mule.

The only glimmer of cheer is that Ron Paul is still in keeping up the good work.

V Hedge I Win, Fails You Lose – Bonner & Rajiva on the Screwy Math of Hedge Funds – 9/22/2006 (reprinted)

HEDGE, I WIN…FAILS, YOU LOSE
by Bill Bonner and Lila Rajiva

Amaranth:

1. Also called pigweed.
2. An imaginary flower that never fades.

Last week investors found to their chagrin that the Greenwich, Connecticut genus of the pigweed, is not only far from imaginary, it can fade out at lightning speed. Hedge fund Amaranth Advisors managed to lose $4.6 billion – about half its entire value – in a matter of just a few days through a sensational miscalculation of the price of natural gas futures in the spring of 2007. Today’s news tells us the figure has now grown to $6 billion.

Star trader Brian Hunter bet the farm on the idea that the gap between the March 2007 natural gas price and the April 2007 would increase. Instead, it fell from about $2.60 per 1,000 cubic feet to about 80 cents, wiping out Amaranths’ 20 plus percent yearly returns, in one fell swoop, to a 35% loss.

Hunter, a Canadian, had made millions for the firm after natural gas prices exploded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He was thought to be so savvy about gas futures that his bosses at Amaranth let him work out of his home in Calgary, where he drove a Ferrari in the summer and a Bentley in the winter. The jazzy wheels matched the snazzy wheeling…and the honeyed dealing at the American energy fund, where 1.4% of net assets went for “bonus compensation to designated traders” and another 2.3% was doled out for “operating expenses.” When an account made a net profit, the manager took care to cut himself up to 1.5% of the account balance per year in addition to a 20% cut of its net profits – less the traders’ bonuses and operating expenses. But when the account lost money, the managers suffered no penalty, though the investors still remained on the hook for the operating expenses and possibly for trader bonuses as well.

What kind of a gig is that? Where investors have to pay to play and then pay to lose, as well? What can investors be thinking when they see their accounts shrivel like anorexics on a fat farm while their managers grow sleek and prosperous in their Greenwich pads?

The hedge fund world is famously populated by math whizzes, each one claiming to have solved Poincare’s Conjecture. But the important math of hedge funds is very simple: it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

The typical fund charges 2% of capital, plus 20% of the gains above a benchmark, often the risk-free rate of return – say around 5% today. So, a fund with a 10% return charges its clients 2% of capital…plus, another 2% (20% of 10%) for the performance. Even a fund that is able to do twice as well as the benchmark – a difficult feat – only leaves the investor with a 6% return, net.

A common pattern is that for four years in a row, the fund gets twice the return as the risk-free rate and every fifth year it suffers a 10% loss. When this happens, the fund managers do not send out a letter offering to share 20% of the loss. No, they are happy to take a percentage of the profits, but not the losses. So, in the four fat years, the fund builds up…with the managers taking their cut. But in the fifth year, investors take all of the loss, effectively magnifying it, making a dollar of loss equal to $1.25 of gain.

The essential math is not only easy…it is perverse. As demonstrated by Amaranth, fund managers have every incentive to take wild gambles. If the gamble pays off, they become rich and famous. If it does not, they are still the same math prodigies they were before. It is like playing strip poker with a beautiful woman. When you lose a hand, you take off your shirt. But when she loses, she puts on a leather coat.

Why do investors think they can get anywhere in such a game? The quick answer is that investors are not thinking.

In the late stages of empire, thinking becomes a vestigial function – about as useful as an appendix…and as liable to be cut out in a crisis.

Instead, investors rationalize…and theorize…to justify the excesses and extravagances of the imperial economy. Why buy a hedge fund? Better returns, they say – though hedge fund returns have been so abysmally low that their money would have slept sounder tucked up in a cozy money market account. Different market, they argue – claiming that the new conditions demand provocative trading rather than stodgy buying-and-holding.

Don’t marry your stocks, they warn. Just shack up for a few months and unload them when the next hottie comes along; that’s what the celebrity hedgies do. But filling your portfolios with fast moving floozies is no way to make money; they’ve all been on the street too long already…they’re overpriced and overworked. And when the market goes down, they’ll go down faster and further than more. The hedge funds have smarter managers, claim investors. And here, finally, they might have a point. Who but a real sharpie could have come up with such a clever scheme? Hedge fund clients might be dripping in red the past few years, but the fund managers themselves are in clover.

If vanity were gravity, Greenwich, Connecticut would be a black hole. The puffed-up twits who manage most hedge funds contribute to more unwarranted bluster per square foot there than in any place outside North Korea. Greenwich sucks in money from all over the financial world and turns it into…nothing.

In this respect, Amaranth is only following the hedge fund playbook. Deals for hedge bosses are so sweet that Warren Buffet claims the funds aren’t really investment vehicles at all but compensation strategies – ways to keep star managers in their multimillion dollar digs while the funds themselves turn in lower and lower returns…sub-10% on average, and in some cases, pushing below 5%, according to the Hedge Fund Index. In fact, in 2005, some 848 hedges closed down their business, says one consultancy firm, Hedge Fund Research Inc.

Is it just a case of too much of a good thing diluting the returns? Could be.

When Alfred Winslow Jones coined the term in 1949, hedge funds operated on the margins of the investment world. “Hedge fund” then simply meant a portfolio of stocks with long and short positions, the shorts acting as a hedge against losses in the longs.

Today, the term better describes the legal structure of the groups – private, and limited to a specific number of investors, with a minimum of $1 million in assets – and the actual strategies employed vary dramatically – from commodity trading to distressed investing.

And today, hedge funds have spread like a tropical parasite so that there are now 8000 or so of them, infesting even institutional investors and pension funds, and sucking in total assets of about $1.2 trillion. Meanwhile, hedge funds specifically engaged in energy trading – like Amaranth – have proliferated – soaring from about $5 billion to a stratospheric $100 billion.

You’d think this would give at least the pros in the business some pause. Yet, Morgan Stanley, for example, pumped five percent of its $2.3 billion fund of hedge funds into Amaranth. And, Goldman Sachs’ fund of hedge funds also admitted that an anonymous energy-related investment – guess who? – had wiped off a chunky three percent off its monthly return.

Hubris and excessive risk run through the entire sorry episode. Hunter himself was borrowing $8 for every $1 of Amaranth’s own funds, while taking positions ten times larger than veteran energy trader, Goldman, and twice the size of the next biggest trader. Hunter also expanded Amaranth’s natural gas holdings so that they became half the firm’s entire exposure, where they had once been only 7%.

Like LTCM – the energy firm that blew up in 1998 – Amaranth held such large positions in the market that it could not unravel its positions. Like LTCM, Amaranth seemed certain it would never fail and boasted of its “fearlessness” on its website. Like LTCM, Amaranth was hazy about what it was doing and how…

But unlike LTCM, the financial community is reacting with odd indifference to Amaranth’s fiasco. Peter Fusaro, co-founder of the Energy Hedge Fund Center, which tracks 520 energy hedge funds, shrugs that Amaranth is “a hiccup.” Amaranth’s blow-up doesn’t affect as many institutional investors and banks and other financial VIPs, as LTCMs did. Only its rich clients have to endure the pangs of portfolios sliced neatly in half.

Maybe so.

Maybe not.

We think of the typical hedge fund manager. Not yet 30, no experience of a real bear market, let alone a credit contraction…the man thinks only of the new house he will build in Greenwich, Connecticut, if his bets pay off. He imagines that he will take his place alongside George Soros and the Quantum Fund.

More likely, he will join Nicholas Maounis in the pigweed.

Bill Bonner and Lila Rajiva

From The Daily Reckoning.