Turmoil In The Money Markets & Financing Burgeoning Budget Deficits

Sit up and listen, folks.  We may be in the midst of a Black Swan event.

Nobody knows for certain what is creating the turmoil in the repo and money markets but we suspect much of it has to do with the increase of the trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits during an economic expansion, i.e., pro-cyclical budget deficits, which have been very rare.   We have been pounding this theme over the past month.  See our last post here.

If you want some context and a comprehensive understanding of the changing dynamics of financing the budget deficit and the structure of the Treasury market, go to our tome,  The Gathering Storm In The Treasury Market.   That piece was posted last September, just before the spike in the 10-year Treasury yield, which caused the Q4 stock market crash.

The upshot of the post was that the technical factors of the Treasury market, supply and demand, are rapidly changing and the natural path of real interest rates are higher, and there are consequences to financial repression.   We underestimated just how sensitive global markets were to an even 50 bps increase in long-term bond yields but we did hedge ourselves,

All bets off given a geopolitical shock — we are concerned how quickly U.S.-China relations are moving south;  a collapse in stock prices,  or a sharp slowdown in economic activity.   Haven flows will likely swamp the structural factors pressuring yields higher.  – GMM, August 24, 2018

So, here we are, one year later with yields 150 bps lower but the Treasury still is in need of $1 trillion in annual financing.  We believe the distortions are now showing up in the money markets as interest rates cannot move higher to their steady-state normal equilibrium levels because markets perceive there is too much debt in the global financial system.

If you squeeze a balloon, the pressure and bulge shows up elsewhere.  Classic Le Chatelier’s principle

The Bloomie opinion page also seems to get it.

Bloomie_Repo_1

I’d offer another angle that’s largely flown under the radar: The chaos in repo markets was a long time coming given the widening U.S. budget deficits and the lenders that are financing that shortfall.

Deficits, while nothing new, add up over time. And while they declined each year from 2011 through 2015, both overall and as a percentage of gross domestic product, the gap has widened again under President Donald Trump. Put it all together, and the amount of U.S. Treasury securities outstanding has roughly tripled since the financial crisis:

This growth was mostly under control in the years after the financial crisis because the Fed had been buying up large chunks of the Treasury market through its quantitative easing programs. But it was gradually reducing the size of its balance sheet from late 2017 until July, precisely at the same time that the Treasury Department was increasing the size of its monthly auctions to finance the bigger budget shortfalls. All told, the Fed now holds about $2.1 trillion of Treasuries, down from almost $2.5 trillion previously:  – Bloomberg

 

Central Banks Financing U.S. Budget Deficit

Since around 2000, when the Federal budget was in surplus, the U.S. government has leaned heavily on foreign central banks and then the Fed post-GFC to plug it growing fiscal gap.  The Fed cannot finance the government directly by participating in the monthly auctions (unless rolling over SOMA portfolio) but do so indirectly in their secondary market purchases either through QE, and,  now we argue through open market operations OMO, which, we suspect,  will soon morph into POMO and another permanent round of QE.   This is now taking place when the annualized core CPI over the past three months is running at 3.4 percent. 

Note, at the end of July, the Fed and foreign central banks held almost 50 percent of all marketable Treasury notes and bonds outstanding.  That is just stunning.

 

Treasury_Distortion_1

 

The central bank financing of the U.S. government has freed up funds and liquidity to power other asset markets and capital spending, or buybacks.

Central Banks Pulling Back

The Fed and the big central banks that matter and are scaleable – China and Japan – have pulled back their purchases of Treasuries at the same time interest rates have fallen way below, what we believe is their equilibrium technical level to clear the market.  Think, rent control.

Bloomie_Repo_2

Source: Bloomberg

Even the narrative that foreigners are chasing Treasuries for yield doesn’t seem to be backed up by data — at least the 10-year note —  from the recent monthly auctions. As of the issuance date on August 15th, foreigners were allotted just 13.6 percent on average over the past three auctions.

In fact, the August 15th (August 7 auction date) issuance allotted only 12.02 percent to foreigners and international buyers, the lowest since September 2016.

Bloomie_Repo_4

Bad Timing

Bad timing as the Treasury, who had been forced to finance its budget shortfall prior to  August by running down its balances at the Fed and by other means due to the debt ceiling, borrowed almost $400 billion from the public in August.  That may, underscore may, have shocked the financial system.   Kind of like the pressure building up on a beachball, which is held underwater then suddenly released.

The Treasury is pretty good at managing its borrowing to maintain market stability and issued around $200 billion of $386 billion in the form of nonmarketable General Account Series debt to the public.  These Treasuries are usually issued to intragovernmental agencies – i,e, nonpublic — such as the Social Security trust funds

 

Bloomie_Repo_6

 

Who took down the $200 billion of GAS?  We suspect it is a fudge factor account and we have reached out to Treasury trying to nail it down.  Will let you know as soon as we find the answer.

 

Repo_Montly Borrowings

Banks Getting Stuffed

Moreover,  it does seem banks, including primary dealers,  are choking on Treasury securities.

So if it’s not the Fed, it’s not China and it’s not Japan, where are all these Treasuries going?

U.S. commercial banks are certainly a place to start looking. They’ve done their part since the financial crisis, but especially lately, with holdings of Treasuries and agency securities climbing to almost $3 trillion as of Sept. 11:

Bloomie_Repo_3

Primary dealers, a select subset of banks that are obligated to bid at Treasury auctions, were saddled earlier this year with the most Treasuries ever — an outright position of almost $300 billion. Even now, their holdings are more than double what they were a year ago as they’re required to take down larger pieces of the U.S. government’s debt sales. 

There are simply too many bonds (or, in the language of the repo market, “collateral”) sloshing around in the financial system and not enough cash on the other side of the trade. America’s budget deficits are being financed domestically and leading to a relentless drain on reserves – Bloomberg

So there you have it, folks, it’s not rocket science.

Too much supply in all the wrong places and not enough demand from all the right places.  If rates were allowed to go to their natural equilibrium level, demand for Treasuries would increase from natural buyers and I seriously doubt the money market markets would be seizing up.  But, as we know from Q4 2018, interest rates can’t go up because the stock and asset markets will and did crash.

The End Game

We have been concerned for quite some time about the financing of big budget deficits, and we mean big – the deficit from October to August 2019 is equivalent to the combined GDPs of Austria, Ireland, and the Czech Republic, especially given the distortion of global interest rates,

A question has been nagging us for some time.  If the current sovereign yields are repressed and fake, many of which are negative, can the borrowers issue any significant amount of new debt at these current yields?   Especially to long-term holders?

We are just thinking out loud here but our priors are that of the Big Three — U.S., Germany, and Japan — which have relatively transparent markets as opposed to China,  the U.S. is the only government that needs to issue a significant supply of debt and bonds into the market.  – GMM,  Aug 6th

It doesn’t surprise us one bit the turmoil taking place in the money market though we thought the pressure would show up more in the monthly auctions.  It could be the banks are being stuffed to window dress the auctions.   Maybe, we don’t know.

We will find out soon as the Treasury will have to ramp up its net new issuance after their creative cash flow management during this year’s debt ceiling negotiations.   We seriously doubt they can without another round of quantitative easing, and that monetization just may be the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony and set us on the happy road to higher inflation, which everyone seems to be wishing for.  Not us, by the way  –  GMM, August 6th 

If we are right, the turmoil in the money markets is more of a structural problem, which may, periodically,  calm down depending on the matching of public and sector cash flows or the distortions may show up elsewhere and in other markets.

It does seem, however, the day of reckoning has or is coming soon on the deficit/debt-bomb so many have been warning about for so long.  Of course, they will say  nobody saw it coming.

The only real political choice will be to monetize the deficits, which will only significantly increase economic and financial distortions, further expanding the minefield of potential Black Swans.

 

Posted in Bonds, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments

What the company of the future will look like | FT


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My 6 Sigma Political Scenario Now Trending On Twitter

I took so much incoming for this part of a post (reposted yesterday) I wrote back in May 2017.  People would look at me as I was crazy when I laid out the unlikely scenario, which, I admit, was written mainly for intellectual entertainment for political junkies.

It won’t happen but it’s hard to believe it is now trending on Twitter after President Trump appeared to throw Mike Pence under the bus today, which led to the following tweet by Harvard Law Prof, Lawrence Tribe.

Twittter

The 6 Sigma Event:  President Pelosi in 2019

Finally,   you know we like to think outside the box here at the Global Macro Monitor and live in the fat tails.

Contemplate this 6 sigma scenario:

Bad news for Trump continues to leak out and staffers and acquaintances are indicted all through the rest of 2017 and 2018.   The Democrats take the House and Senate in a landslide in November 2018.

Impeachment charges are brought both against President Trump and Vice President Pence, say, as a co-conspirator on obstruction of justice charges in the firing of James Comey.

It’s 2019 and the Dems control the House and the Senate with comfortable majorities.

The House impeaches the President and Vice President.   The Senate convicts both.

Who is next in line to assume the Presidency?   The Speaker of the House,  Nancy Pelosi?

The probability?  Six sigma or about 2 * 10^-9 or two in a billion.  Most likely,  even much, much lower. 

Hey,  but good stuff for a political thriller or fodder for the House of Cards,  no?  – GMM,  May 18, 2017

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Mooch On Impeachment

The Mooch says Republican Senators “hate Trump’s guts” and will turn on him.

 

 

Watch this space.  It’s been in rampopotamus mode over the past week.

Trump_Senate

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Viva la Oxford Comma!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Beware Shorting Impeachments

Reposting a piece from a few years back to provide some market perspective on today’s news.  There are a confluence of events, not just political instability, of why we believe stocks are headed lower, including valuations and the shifting of geopolitical and economic tectonic plates.

Posted on

We’ve analyzed the behavior of the S&P500 during the Watergate impeachment hearings and the Clinton impeachment.  If you’re shorting risk markets solely based on speculation that President Trump may be impeached, maybe you should think again.

Let’s first look at the Clinton impeachment S&P500.   The market never seemed to take the Clinton impeachment seriously and was never a threat to the stock market.

Then we’ll analyze the more complicated Watergate scandal, which many consider the main culprit of the 1973/74 bear market, a 50 percent decline in S&P500 from January 11, 1973 to October 3, 1974.

Finally,  we will take a look at Trumpgate and introduce you to our newest political Six Sigma political thriller.

Clinton Impeachment
The rumors of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair broke January 19, 1998, on the Drudge Report, which was a market holiday.  Recall U.S. stocks were in a rip-roaring bull market and massive bubble that saw the Dow rise 253 percent during the Clinton administration, second only to Calvin Coolidge’s roaring twenties bull market (see here for Presidential Stock Returns).   The NASDAQ, home of the infamous dot.coms,  rose a multiple of the Dow.

The table below shows the timeline of various key events and the S&P500 returns.

Clinton Table_Impeachment

Even after the news broke and the “blood was in the water” — recall the media frenzy,  probably crazier than now because it involved sex — U.S. stocks continued to march higher.   The S&P500 rose another 21.27 percent until its peak pre-Russia debt default high of 1,186.75 on July 17th.

Summer of 1998 – Russian Debt Default
Ironically,  Russia announced its debt default the same day President Clinton testified to the grand jury he had an “inappropriate relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky on August 17th.   The global markets fell apart and what was a garden variety correction in the S&P500 sharply accelerated.

The Brazian stock market fell 16 percent on September 10th.   The Fed was forced to cut interest rates several times in just 7 weeks.  Systemic risk was rising rapidly as  Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) ultimately failed and was bailed out by a consortium of financial institutions in late September.

The total decline in S&P500 during this period was 19.34 percent finally bottoming on August 31, many months before the global economic crisis ended.

Was the financial crisis of 1998 the result of the fear of Clinton being impeached?  Hardly, or should we be blunter – NFW!

Remember, the U.S. had the “Committee to Save the World.”

Comittee to Save the World_Impeachment

The 1998 financial crisis was mainly the result of Russia’s debt default and the subsequent huge global margin call.   Hedge funds were big in Russian debt that had defaulted forcing them to sell many of their assets, say, even their Safeway bonds.   As credit spreads significantly widened in almost every credit instrument,  the extremely levered LTCM with all its Nobel laureates tanked.

Even if you believe the march toward impeachment was a contributing factor in the ’98 financial crisis,  it wasn’t,  or it needed a sufficient condition,  and was not even a necessary condition,  in our opinion.    We will admit there is a possibility the Clinton administration was distracted by the scandal and may not have allowed or wanted Russia to default.

We lost a lot of money betting Russia was “too nuclear to fail” even as we were in the euro bonds the Russians continued to pay.  At one point, these bonds with 9 plus percent coupons fell into the teens with current yields of over 60 percent.  There were no buyers in sight.   If only we held on, but couldn’t as we were too levered.

Later, we will make the argument that Watergate may have been the necessary condition of the 1973/74 bear market,  but the OPEC embargo was the sufficient condition.

Impeachment and Acquittal
By the time President Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives on December 19th, the S&P500 was up 23 percent since the Lewinsky rumors first surfaced.  The Senate acquitted President Clinton on February 12, 1999, and with S&P500 up 26 percent since the start of the scandal, “the long national nightmare” of the bankrupt impeachment short sellers was over.

The S&P500 continued higher for another year, finally bursting on March 24, 2000, up 56 percent from the day of discovery of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

Clinton Chart_Impeachment

What we did learn in 1998 was that stock market bubbles don’t pop easily.   That is until they do.

Watergate Scandal
The analysis of Watergate on the stock market is a little more difficult to unpack as it involved the conflation of three major “rock your world” events:

1) A nasty bear market that took the S&P500 down almost  50 percent from January 1973 to October 1974;

2) A potential constitutional crisis (never the case during the Clinton impeachment) as it was uncertain if the White House would turn over “the tapes“.  President Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor who was charged to oversee the federal criminal investigation in Watergate;

3) And we think,  most important, was the first OPEC oil embargo that shook the global economy on October 16, 1973

Watergate Table_Impeachment

The break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate apartment complex took place in the summer of 1972.  It took several months before it hit the front pages as national news and became a Presidential scandal.   Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, now household names, were urban beat reporters rendered to the back pages of the Washington Post when they were assigned to the Watergate story.

The S&P500 was in rally mode going into the 1972 landslide reelection of Richard Nixon. The index peaked on January 11, 1973, at 120.24 and would not regain that level until more than 7 years later.    From the day of the Watergate break-in until the January peak, the S&P500 rose 11.22 percent.

Liddy and McCord Convictions
On January 30, 1973, two members of President Nixon’s re-election committee were convicted for the Watergate break-in.

“…two former officials of President Nixon’s re-election committee, G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord, Jr. were convicted yesterday of conspiracy, burglary and bugging the Democratic Party’s Watergate headquarters.”
Washington Post, January 31, 1973

Game on,  Watergate.

Short-term Bottom
The S&P500 continued to decline through the summer until making a short-term low on  August 22nd at 100.53,  down 16 percent from the January high.   It then rallied 11 percent for two months peaking on October 26th.

At this point, the S&P500 was only down 7.4 percent even after the John Dean testimony to Congress and the Saturday Night Massacre and the OPEC oil embargo, of which both occurred just a week before.    Similarly ironic,  the OPEC oil embargo and the Saturday Night Massacre occurred in the same week as did the Clinton confession to the grand jury and Russian debt default happened on the same day.

Watergate Chart_Impeachment

.

The double shock of OPEC, raising the price of oil by 70 percent with further cuts in production to follow,  coupled with the Saturday Night Massacre, raising the specter of a constitutional crisis in the U.S.,  sent the global economy and markets into a tailspin.

As the chart illustrates, these two events marked the end of the short-term rally.  The S&P500 proceeded to fall another 43.5 percent through the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974,  until it bottomed on October 3, 1974.

From its January 1973 high until the resignation of President Nixon in August 1974, the S&P500 fell 32 percent.

OPEC or Watergate?
So we ask you, folks, what was the main cause of the 1973/74 bear market and 50 percent decline of S&P500?  Watergate or OPEC?

Structural Economic Damage of OPEC
Nobody knows for certain,   but we maintain speculate that if the global economy had not suffered the structural damage from the OPEC shock,  the Watergate scandal would have been just noise and the S&P500 would’ve probably not even entered a bear market and suffered only a normal correction.   That is unless Nixon sent tanks out onto Pennsylvania Avenue.

Though the S&P500 bottomed less than two months after President Nixon resigned,  it didn’t regain its January 1973 high until July 17, 1980.   The stagnation of the 1970’s brought on by the structural damage to and the massive realignment of the global economy of the OPEC shocks definitely took a major long-term toll on the financial markets.

Yom Kippur War
An argument can be made that Watergate distracted and weakened the Nixon administration, which emboldened the Arab nations that attacked Israel during the Yom Kippur War in early October 1973.    The Nixon Administration responded with Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel.

This was after the Soviet Union began sending arms to Syria and Egypt.  The Arab nations of OPEC, in retaliation to Operation Nickel Grass, raised the posted price of oil on October 16.  The actions of the Soviets and OPEC may have been the result that they and the world perceived the U.S. weak due to a domestic political scandal.   Pure supposition on our part.

So, Watergate, a necessary condition to the 1973/74 bear market?   Maybe.

What About Trumpgate?
So far no hard facts and no smoking gun, at least that is publicly known, no John Dean testimony, no tapes.

But potentially more complicated.  The underlying allegations are much more serious than covering up of a third rate political burglary and lying about, well, you know.   Also, a much wider net that could consist of many things, including improper business transactions that took place prior to taking office.

Lots of incompetence, strange and suspicious behavior from the administration, combined with speculation, rumors, coincidences, and what appears to be circumstantial evidence of some sort of a coverup, and the punditry in a feeding frenzy desperately trying to connect the dots.   Once again, a total media circus.

Oh yes, and the appointment of the highly and widely respected Special Counsel, Robert Mueller,  to “oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.”

Though the appointment of Mueller illustrates just how serious the matter is, and is becoming, it should be seen as a positive by both those who suspect President Trump is guilty of something as it takes the specter of a constitutional crisis off the table. And for those who believe the President has done nothing wrong,  the appointment of the Special Counsel should vindicate him.   All other things being equal,  the Mueller appointment should be a positive for the markets.

Unless President Trump fires the Special Counsel.

Furthermore, doesn’t it seem like President Trump is making a special effort to go out of his way just to troll his political opponents?

Conclusion
Granted the initial conditions of these three cases differ greatly.  Valuations, liquidity conditions, and the structure of the global economy all have changed dramatically.  But as illustrated in our analysis,  it is usually not a great idea to short stocks based solely on an impeachment trade.   In fact,  we tend to agree with what Professor Jeremy Siegal of the Wharton School said yesterday on CNBC,

“If Donald Trump resigned tomorrow I think the Dow would go up 1,000 points,”  Jeremy Siegel, May 17, 2017

The corollary is that the Republican pro-economic growth agenda is then accelerated as the political distraction, incompetence and protectionist bias of the current administration are removed.  And that the policies are passed before the 2018 election, which the Republicans are becoming increasingly vulnerable to losing both houses of Congress.

The downside scenario is that the investigation lingers, the bad news keeps dripping out, nothing gets done,  the Democrats take the House in 2018 and introduce impeachment hearings.   That may be the most likely scenario and stocks won’t like it, especially given their high valuations.

Our sense,  the Republicans may believe this scenario and double up their efforts to unify and get something done quickly — that is going to the “two-minute offense” — as the clock runs out.   Stock positive.

One Big Caveat
Noted in our analysis are the two big “coincidences” of bad things concurrently occurring at tipping points during the two impeachment proceedings.   The Russian default on the same day President Clinton confessed to the grand jury and the OPEC oil embargo during the same week of Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre.   Coincidences?

Bad things tend to happen in the world when the U.S. administration is distracted and looks weakened by political scandal.  And, believe us, there is a legion of bad things out there just waiting to happen, all of which are stock market negative.

And then there is “wag the dog“.

The 6 Sigma Event:  President Pelosi in 2019
Finally,   you know we like to think outside the box here at the Global Macro Monitor and live in the fat tails.

Contemplate this 6 sigma scenario:

Bad news for Trump continues to leak out and staffers and acquaintances are indicted all through the rest of 2017 and 2018.   The Democrats take the House and Senate in a landslide in November 2018.

Impeachment charges are brought both against President Trump and Vice President Pence, say, as a co-conspirator on obstruction of justice charges in the firing of James Comey.

It’s 2019 and the Dems control the House and the Senate with comfortable majorities.

The House impeaches the President and Vice President.   The Senate convicts both.

Who is next in line to assume the Presidency?   The Speaker of the House,  Nancy Pelosi?

The probability?  Six sigma or about 2 * 10^-9 or two in a billion.  Most likely,  even much, much lower. 

Hey,  but good stuff for a political thriller or fodder for the House of Cards,  no?

Posted in Politics, President Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The Magical Monetary Policy Mystery Tour

Wow!  Just heard a so-called “banking expert” say that the Fed was reducing reserves on their balance sheet during quantitative tightening (QT), which has led to the current chaos in the overnight repo market.   Not entirely true.

Asymmetric Libalibity Balance Sheet Accounting

During QE the Fed purchased assets in the secondary markets, primarily Treasury notes and bonds, and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), by increasing their liabilities in the form of bank reserves.    During QT, on a monthly basis, the Fed did not reinvest some or all of the maturing securities purchased during QE up to a certain monthly cap.  The U.S. Treasury, for example, would have to pay down the debt by reducing their cash balance at the Fed.

Rather than reducing reserves on the liability side, the Fed would reduce their liabilities by the reduction of the Treasury cash balance equivalent to the maturing securities.   We are not certain, but suspect, when MBS rolled off, reserves were reduced.   The Fed is a bit less transparent when it comes to their MBS portfolio, at least that is our perspective and could be due to the complications of prepayment risk.

Nevertheless, we believe QT worked more through a high powered fiscal channel as the maturing Treasuries sucked liquidity out of the market through maturing debt and not a direct reduction in bank reserves on the Fed balance sheet.  As a consequence, the Treasury had to issue more securities in the market to replenish their cash balances, an effective checking account, at the Fed.  Crowding out on steroids.

Still, at the end of the day,  excess reserves in the monetary system have tracked the reduction in Federal Reserve assets fairly closely but certainly not a rho =1,  perfect correlation.  There is the rub.

Monetary Policy Is Complex And Complicated

As an undergraduate political science student (double major in econ),  I read somewhere that President Kennedy had much trouble understanding the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.  In fact, to prevent from conflating the two in public, he wrote cheat notes with a pen on each fist before his press conferences.  I am still searching for the source of that factoid.

Even former Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted monetary policy is a black box,

There is, regrettably, no simple model of the American economy that can effectively explain the levels of output, employment, and inflation. In principle, there may be some unbelievably complex set of equations that does that. But we have not been able to find them, and do not believe anyone else has either. 

Consequently, we are led, of necessity, to employ ad hoc partial models and intensive informative analysis to aid in evaluating economic developments and implementing policy. There is no alternative to this, though we continuously seek to enhance our knowledge to match the ever-growing complexity of the world economy.   – Alan Greenspan, Decemeber 1996

The Pragmatic Capitalism blog has the best perspective on the complexity of today’s monetary system, in our opinion,

The monetary system is too complex and too dynamic for you to understand it all. So it’s better to understand enough that you can be competent, but not so much that you become a danger to yourself.  – Cullen Roche

So, nobody knows with absolute certainty what the hell is going on in the repo and money markets.

Are bank reserves too low?  Are markets starting too convulse because debt is too high?  Is there a temporary mismatch in cash flows of different financial entities?   Is the problem a temporary blip or more systemic?  All of the above?  None of the above?

Wish we could say, but we don’t know.

Nevertheless, as  Goethe once stated, 

By seeking and blundering, we learn.

Look At Deficit Financing

We do have our suspicions that the money market turmoil has something to do with what is happening with the huge increase in the budget deficit, which in the first 11 months of fiscal (Oct-Sep) 2019 is close to $1.1 trillion dollars.  That’s larger than the combined GDPs of Austria,  Ireland, and the Czech Republic.   In addition, how the deficit has been financed during the budget ceiling negotiations we believe is also impacting market liquidity.

It’s tantamount to holding a beach ball underwater and then released when the President signed the debt ceiling deal at the beginning of August.

 

Repo_Montly Borrowings

Add to that our distorted monetary system where interest rates are repressed and prices can’t clear the market but quantities will.  Think, rent control.

A decade of extraordinary monetary policy experiments has left the system badly distorted. Thus the Fed is now like a pilot flying a plane with an engine that has been stealthily remodelled. Neither the passengers nor the pilot knows how the engine’s shifting cogs might affect the controls during a wave of turbulence, because there is little historical precedent.  —  FT,  Sep 19th

Le Chatelier’s Principle (LCP)

It’s a classic case of Le Chatelier’s principle (LCP) in action.  If one economic variable is repressed in a dynamic equilibrium system, such as prices or interest rates and not allowed to adjust to clear the market, another variable in the system will have to move to offset.  The great economist, Paul Samuelson, did his Ph.D. dissertation on LCP.

Maybe that variable is cash liquidity?

It is clear to us, there is too much debt in the system to allow interest rates to move to their equilibrium levels in a steady-state normal world.  We saw what happened in Q4 2018 to the stock market when the 10-year Treasury yield broke out higher, one year ago to almost this very day.

Because rates can’t move higher to a technical equilibrium level as the supply of debt increases, the larger budget deficits will have to be financed by either haven flows as other markets (stocks, e.g.)  sell off,  foreign inflows (stronger dollar), more indirect monetization in the form of some kind of QE or a derivative of POMO, OMO,  a combination of all of the above, or whatever you want to call it.

It doesn’t seem there is much appetite to allow markets to fall to generate the haven flows nor for a stronger dollar.  Ergo, the Fed will be forced to do the heavy lifting.  If you been reading GMM over the years, you know which variable will offset the Fed activity.  That is the end game.

Coming Soon 

We are still working on the analysis but here is a sneak peek at some of the data.

Repo_Montly Borrowings_2

Again, looking at the data in the table, we believe the Treasury is going to be issuing a lot more debt in the next few months to make up the months of nonborrowing from the public due to this year’s debt ceiling constraints,  Similar to the first 8 months of last year (see table), which was a catch-up from the 2017 debt ceiling debacle.

As usual, we reserve the right to be wrong.    Stay tuned.

Posted in Fiscal Policy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Impeachment Market Update

Since our post on the impeachment market about nine hours ago, the 2019 contract is up 81 percent, from 21 to 38, and 322 percent in the past week.   Annualize that return!

Mr. Market is not priced for the coming political instability the prediction markets are now starting to price.  Almost even money now for the  first term impeachment contract.

Seat Belts_Mar24

 

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Impeachment Prediction Market Flying

Check out the prediction market on impeachment over at PredictIt.

Odds Have Moved From 11:1 To 4.8:1 Trump Will Now Impeached By Year-End

The contract that Trump will be impeached by the end of 2019 is up 133 percent in the last week,  moving the odds from 11:1 to 4.8:1.

The contract for impeachment by the end of Trump’s first term is up 71.4 percent, moving odds from 4.8:1 to 2.8:1.

Of course, impeachment doesn’t mean removal but Leon Cooperman said on CNBC last week,

“Right now, the market is assuming Donald Trump is reelected.”
2.05 minutes in

Cooperman

Click here to view video 

 

Please, no hate mail accusing us of partisanship.   We are just conveying information that many of our readers are probably not aware of.

Put your money where your politics are and place your bets, folks.  Mr. Market certainly isn’t pricing it.   Maybe there is an arb here?

 

Impeachment Market.png

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

If It’s On The Internet, It’s True. Right?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment