All posts by TTMYGH Administrator

Plus Ça Change…


On May 6, 2012, Françoise Hollande won a landslide victory in the French Presidential elections. Here's how that victory was reported in the (left-leaning) UK Guardian:

(UK GUARDIAN, MAY 6, 2012): François Hollande has won power in France, turning the tide on a rightwards and xenophobic lurch in European politics and vowing to transform Europe's handling of the economic crisis by fighting back against German-led austerity measures.

The 57-year-old rural MP and self-styled Mr Normal, a moderate social democrat from the centre of the Socialist party, is France's first leftwing president in almost 20 years. Projections from early counts, released by French TV, put his score at 51.9%.

His emphatic victory is a boost to the left in a continent that has gradually swung rightwards since the economic crisis broke four years ago.

The man Hollande defeated was Nicholas Sarkozy, leader of the right wing UMP party who had been in office for just one term (though that term - unfortunately for Sarkozy - just happened to coincide with the 2008 Global Financial Crisis).

However, Sarkozy's unseating was conclusive:

Nicolas Sarkozy, defeated after one term in office, became the 11th European leader to lose power since the economic crisis in 2008.

He conceded defeat at a gathering of his party activists at the Mutualité in central Paris, urging them from the stage to stop booing Hollande. "I carry all the responsibility for this defeat," he said.

In the wake of his defeat, Sarkozy, now no longer in office, couldn't help but make one more pledge to the French people (old habits die hard, it seems):

[Sarkozy] said that after 35 years in politics and 10 years at the top of government, he would now become a simple "Frenchman among the French".

Hollande swept into power on a wave of euphoria, promising all kinds of handouts to the French people - handouts which France couldn't afford to actually hand out, frankly, but when did THAT little inconvenience ever stop a politician from making a promise?

Fast forward precisely ten months to March 2013 and I think it's fair to say that the bloom was off the rose:

(UK Daily Telegraph): Some 67 per cent of [French] people now disapprove of [Hollande's] attempts at running the country, less than a year into his five-year term, according to a new poll. The score is 10 per cent worse than last month, according to Opionionway polling institute. 

Only three in 10 now think the Socialist is doing a good job, down eight points, while two thirds believe “things are not changing” for the better...

"Ten months after an election in a first term, this (level of unpopularity) is a record for a French president," said Bruno Jeanbar of Opinionway.


At the time of his defeat in 2012, the standing in which Sarkozy was held by the French public was, like the man himself, diminutive:

(UK Guardian, May 6 2012): The defeat of the most unpopular French president ever to run for re-election was not simply the result of the global financial crisis or eurozone debt turmoil. It was also down to the intense public dislike of the man viewed by many as the "president of the rich" who had swept to victory in 2007 with a huge mandate to change France. The majority of French people felt he had failed to deliver on his promises, and he was criticised for his ostentatious display of wealth, favouring the rich and leaving behind over 2.8 million unemployed. Political analysts said anti-Sarkozy sentiment had become a cultural phenomenon in France.

Now, however, after three years of Hollande's disastrous reign as French President, the people have been given a chance to voice their displeasure at his poor performance at the helm of Europe's second-biggest economy and, who should they turn to, but that 'simple Frenchman amongst the French' himself, Nicholas Sarkozy who, of course, couldn't stay away from politics:

(UK Guardian): The resounding election success by the traditional right UMP and its centrist allies catapulted Sarkozy back into the limelight after what was seen as his lacklustre return to politics in September. His party has been beset by debt, allegations of financial scandals and bitter in-fighting in recent months, but its score turned its fortunes around. Sarkozy described his party’s high score as historic and a mark of France’s “massive rejection” of the politics of his successor, Hollande.

Sarkozy’s campaign speeches have been sharply rightwing and openly negative towards the Muslim community to win over votes from the far-right – for example in his argument that school canteens should not offer alternative pork-free menus to children, or that the Muslim headscarf, or hijab, should be banned from universities. 

This has irritated some in his own party. But Sarkozy is likely to hail the UMP’s electoral gains as a personal victory for himself and a vindication of his veer to the right. The decisive win for the UMP will comfort his personal ambitions to win the party’s primary contest next year and run for president again in 2017.

Sarkozy's UMP party was seen as an acceptable alternative (for now) to the extreme right-wing Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, who have moved from a protest vote into a viable contender for office thanks to the paucity of the two main parties' leadership.

The 'cultural phenomenon of anti-Sarkozy sentiment' had to be swallowed in pursuit of a protest vote against perhaps the worst President France has had in living memory (and probably beyond).

The situation in France demonstrates, once again, the problem with modern Western democracies where a complete lack of true leadership has led to unpopular incumbents and comebacks by once-vilified ex-presidents across the political landscape.

The tipping point arrives when electorates realise that a vote for either of the two main parties is simply a vote for a horse of a different colour as, no matter which party takes office, the debt dynamics remain constant.

Eventually, impatience and frustration leads to a vote for extremism and that is something simply Europe cannot afford - but also a growing reality it has to face.

Greece's dance back and forth between PASOK and New Democracy (each of which was more hopeless than the other in successive terms of office) eventually resulted in the election of The Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) and we all know how well THAT little exercise in freedom of expression is working out.

Meanwhile, through it all, the cost to whoever inhabits the Élysée Palace of borrowing money from international bond markets is at a 700-year low (sorry, the chart 'only' goes back a couple of hundred years) and its yield curve is negative out to four years.

Despite appearances, France is a timebomb at the heart of Europe and, if reality were to reimpose itself upon markets, all hell would be let loose. However, for now, none of that matters.

Plus ça change...

France-government-bond-yield-Long-Term France Curve

Much Ado About Nothing

Today, in a Bloomberg video entitled "The Three Most Important Things Janet Yellen Said", this was #2:

"In December and January, the committee judged that it could be patient in beginning to normalise the stance of monetary policy. That meant that we considered it unlikely that economic conditions would warrant an increase in the target range for the Federal Funds rate for at least the next couple of FOMC meetings.

While it's still the case that we consider it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range at the April meeting, such an increase could be warranted at any later meeting depending on how the economy evolves.

Lemme emphasise again, that today's modification of the forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range for the Federal Funds rate. In particular, this change does not mean that an increase will occur in June - although we can't rule that out..."

These words? The entire financial world was hanging on THESE WORDS?

What she in effect said was this:

"Interest rates could increase from zero at some point in the future"

Then she said this:

"Rates won't necessarily go up in June. But they might."

Anybody who found themselves surprised by either of these statements should perhaps seek employment in an alternative industry.

So why the violent reaction in just about every asset class to a series of ridiculous statements which, again, "stated the bleeding obvious"?

Ah... well therein lies the rub.

Those violent moves in currencies, stocks, bonds and commodities are the first signs of the markets finally reacquainting themselves with reality and the reality is this:

The credibility of the Federal Reserve is hanging by the thinnest of threads and, unfortunately, that credibility is the ONLY thing holding back the tidal wave set to swamp the world once not just the Fed, but its cohort around the world are seen for what they really are and the complete hopelessness of their current situation understood is understood by markets lulled into a false sense of complacency by six years of QE-fueled gains.

One thing I can guarantee you is that the credibility and trust that took several years of concerted action by central banks to build up will disappear in a matter of days.


Painted Into A Corner

Surely Not?

“I am afraid this may not be a one-off episode... The timing of interest rate lift-off and the pace of subsequent rate increases can still surprise markets. The danger is that vulnerabilities that build up during a period of very accommodative monetary policy can unwind suddenly when such policy is reversed, creating substantial market volatility.”

These are the words of IMF head, Christine Lagarde and are taken from an article in the FT quoting a speech she gave yesterday in Mumbai in which she 'warned' of potential instability in Emerging Markets once interest rates begin to rise.

The article went on:

"...Ms Lagarde also warned that emerging economies faced a second risk from the recent strength of the US currency, with indebted companies that took advantage of low rates to borrow in dollars facing sudden and steep jumps in debt servicing costs."

There is a distinct lag in the delivery of messages such as these from the world's smartest investors and the world's smartest bureaucrats.

By the time the likes of Lagarde issue such warnings, it's likely too late to do anything about them.

For Lagarde to verbalise these ideas now, when the damage is already being done is of little use to anybody - other than to give the IMF the ability to say they foresaw the crisis.

Basil Fawlty called it "stating the bleeding obvious".

'Potential' instability in emerging markets, eh, Christine?

BRICS vs Dollar

See that chart? That would be the BRICS currency moves versus the dollar in the last 8 months.

Potential trouble spot? You think?...and these moves are essentially predicated upon the mere likelihood that the word 'patience' may be removed from a prepared statement issued later this afternoon.

Funnily enough, no sooner had Ms. Lagarde dazzled us all with her brilliant insight, than the other international home for financial geniuses, the OECD, wheeled out their chief economist, Catherine Mann, who offered the world this piece of cutting analysis:

"Excessive reliance on monetary policy alone is building-up financial risks, while not yet reviving business investment".

What would we do without them?

The serious point to understand about all this is that these are the same group of people who were certain subprime was contained, that the GFC was perfectly manageable, that QE1 would solve everything and that growth would have been back to 3% long ago.

The very fact that they are making these forecasts now tells us we are far nearer the denouement than many believe. If the IMF and the OECD think the world is in a degree of trouble, you can guarantee one thing; we're in WAY more trouble than that.

Target Practice

Amidst the hoopla over a possible Grexit lies the TARGET2 payments system and by far the largest claims on that system are those of the Bundesbank.

In January, as talk of a potential Grexit increased daily, a funny thing happened... claims on German banks in TARGET2 increased significantly suggesting that 'someone' has been moving a lot of money from 'somewhere' into the safety of German banks.

Of course, we have no idea who the 'someone' might be...

TARGET2 Bundesbank Claims


Thoughts From Athens…

Through my writing and traveling I am extremely fortunate to be in touch with a host of extremely smart, extremely well-connected people in all sorts of weird and wonderful places and one of those people happens to reside in Greece.

My 'source' (who I shall refer to as Socrates) sends me regular updates from the middle of the turmoil and those updates are always full of great insight. Today's note was particularly important ahead of the upcoming meeting with the EU and, I am delighted to say that Socrates has given me permission to post his thoughts so I'll hand over to him:

Just wanted to give you a brief update on Greece.

First of all let me start from the fact that we still have not elected a president. If you remember the reason we went to elections was that we did not agree on the who the next president would be.. Obviously not the real reason but that was the argument… As of Feb 12 we are in breach of our constitution because we were supposed have elect a president prior to that date. However we still do not know who the candidate will be.. Rumor has it that it will be Avramopoulos the current European commissioner for Migration (ex MP of New Democracy) but a few obstacles have come up.

The fist one is that Junker does not want him to leave and does not want a left wing guy from Syriza taking control of migration issues within Europe.. So Junker is against it. The second reason is that the hard left part of Syriza is going ballistic.. they obviously do not want a right wing guy taking the presidency.. So for once more we are in limbo… do not know what is going to happen.. Syriza is supposed to announce its candidate tomorrow. Nevertheless, they can pick anyone they like.. this time the votes go 180, 151 and on the 3rd round the candidate with the most votes gets elected president. So the president will be elected, the question is now who will it be.

The Greek president does not have much authority, its mostly an honorary position, but he holds one very important right. He can call for early elections anytime if he believes there is a national emergency. So his time it matters who the next president will be.

Coming to the rest of our problems.. I think its obvious now to everyone that the New government has no idea on how to handle things.. On the one side they go blaming Europe and on the other they ask for money and more time.. they believe that but arranging protests in Greece they will achieve something but its obvious they will not. My information tells me there is zero chance of getting a deal today and personally I find it very unlikely we will get a deal anytime soon. However, even if we do get a deal that’s when the real problems start for Syriza.

I am not sure the new government has realized how this would work. Even if they sign.. no money will flow into Greece unless Greece passes the relevant laws through the parliament… And as you can imagine.. the left wing of Syriza will not sign any of these agreements… So I am very afraid that Greece will be forced either to early elections again or to a referendum..

The new government is currently very popular in Greece and this has to do with the media propaganda going on.. If you read the Greek news you will think that this is the best government to ever govern Greece. That they care about Greeks, that they are the first to really negotiate on behalf of Greeks etc etc.. What no one is saying is that we are looking like fools and we are being ridiculed.. All the big media are being blackmailed by the government and they cannot say anything they want.. the first signs of communism are already here..

However I am not sure what would happen if a vote was called under strained conditions. Ie. Capital controls or if for one month pensions and salaries were not paid due to lack of cash.. Then i guess popularity would deteriorate.. Nevertheless, never forget how patriotic and stubborn Greeks are.. After this hideous propaganda Greeks might prefer due to national pride to leave the euro and blame it for once more on the Germans.

One more thing to note… money is flying out of Greek banks.. The ECB on Thursday raised the cap on ELA funds to 65 bn from 59.. I can tell you with great certainty that this amount has already left the banking system.. and the ECB will be forced to raise the ELA amount again.. If not expect capital controls to occur pretty soon…

I really hope I am wrong… but things are becoming very dangerous in Greece. The media propaganda is becoming worse and worse and people do not seem to understand the reality they are in…

The Rediscovery Of The Mind

“Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King backed more action to boost the economy earlier this month, but was outvoted by his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).

Minutes of the MPC’s meeting show it voted 6-3 against expanding the quantitative easing (QE) programme from its current level of £375bn.” - BBC News, 20 February, 2013

“[Greenspan] said the bond-buying program was ultimately a mixed bag. He said that the purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities did help lift asset prices and lower borrowing costs. But it didn’t do much for the real economy.

“Effective demand is dead in the water” and the effort to boost it via bond buying “has not worked,” said Mr. Greenspan. Boosting asset prices, however, has been “a terrific success.” - Wall Street Journal


“I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?”

With those nine words, Professor Alan Turing (played brilliantly in the current Oscar-nominated movie The Imitation Game, by the wonderfully-named Benedict Cumberbatch) began his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” in which he set out to find if it were possible for a machine to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable to that of a human.

In order to achieve his aim, Turing (the man who famously broke the code of the Nazis’ Enigma Machine—an action estimated to have shortened WWII by at least two years) devised a simple test by which he would be able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt whether a machine could actually “think.”


In the Turing Test, the interrogator (C) is tasked with trying to establish which of players (A & B) is human and which is a machine based solely on written answers to written questions.

If the interrogator is unable to determine whether he is talking to the man or the machine, the latter is deemed to have passed the test and can therefore be said to have artificial intelligence.


In 1980, John Rogers Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, published a paper entitled “Minds, Brains and Programs” in which he introduced an argument called “The Chinese Room” which, according to David Cole, writing in 2002 was “...probably...the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear in the past 25 years.”

Searle’s argument sparked enormous discussion (with most commentary aimed at proving it fallacious), but what he suggested—like the suggestions of Turing before him— was simple, clean, and stimulating.

(Wikipedia): “Assume you do not speak Chinese and imagine yourself in a room with two slits, a book, and some scratch paper. Someone slides you some Chinese characters through the first slit, you follow the instructions in the book, transcribing characters as instructed onto the scratch paper, and slide the resulting sheet out the second slit. To people on the outside world, it appears the room speaks Chinese—they slide Chinese statements in one slit and get valid responses in return—yet you do not understand a word of Chinese.”

Now, with that as background, let’s move forward in time to November of 2014, when former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations.

After his speech, in a subsequent discussion with Gillian Tett of the London Financial Times, the following exchange took place:

TETT: Do you think that gold is currently a good investment?
GREENSPAN: Yes... Remember what we’re looking at. Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.

Now, contrary to your initial fears, this is not going to be a piece espousing the benefits of owning gold (“thank Heavens!” I hear you cry), but Greenspan’s comments were—to those of us who watch such things closely—both extraordinary and symptomatic.

Having decried gold relentlessly during his time as Fed Chair, Greenspan reverted to his core beliefs once relieved of that burden, and announced (I am told, with a straight face) that no fiat currency, including the dollar, was its equal.

Hot on the heels of Greenspan’s volte face, former Bank of England (BoE) governor Melvyn King recently gave his first public speech since leaving office almost two years ago. Interestingly, his reappearance in the spotlight happened just a handful of days before Mario Draghi finally unveiled the much-anticipated European Central Bank (ECB) Quantitative Easing (QE) program and what King had to say was, once again, highly educational:

(Reuters): King said he was concerned about a persistent weakness in global economic demand, six years on from the depths of the financial crisis

“We should worry about that,” King told an audience at the London School of Economics, where he was once a professor.

“We have had the biggest monetary stimulus that the world must have ever seen, and we still have not solved the problem of weak demand. The idea that monetary stimulus after six years ... is the answer doesn’t seem (right) to me,” he added...

“There are quite serious disequilibria both between and within economies that, for good economic reasons, are depressing demand. Simply lowering rates even further or adding more monetary stimulus is unlikely to solve that problem,” he said.

During King’s tenure as Governor, the Bank of England bought £375 billion of government bonds between 2009 and 2011 to take the BoE’s total assets from a little under £100 billion to today’s £405 billion in its own QE program, aimed at restoring the UK economy to growth in the wake of the Great Recession of 2008.

King was an ardent supporter of the QE program and, in fact, he was still lobbying for an increase in its size a mere four months prior to his departure, stage left, but—and here’s where we finally get to the point of this week’s EVA—once his job was no longer predicated on toeing the company line, King seems to have made what Searle called in his 1992 book a Rediscovery of the Mind, just as Greenspan did before him.

The policy of Quantitative Easing has been around for over two decades now and was begun by the Bank of Japan, who are currently in the midst of QE10. Each of their iterations of Quantitative Easing has been greater than the last and the current “plan” of doubling the monetary base and buying up to 90% of JGB issuance is nothing short of the total debauchery of the yen— debauchery which has been cheered to the echo around the globe as if the destruction of the currency of the world’s second third largest economy is something worth celebrating.

The basic defence of QE (and Keynesian economics in general) has been a simple one throughout the years: It would have worked—they just didn’t print enough. That mentality has been evident across global monetary policy since 2008 as central bank after central bank has capitulated (some more willingly than others) and joined the rush to create currency out of thin air in an attempt to forestall the forces of deflation and generate the level of inflation required to stop the enormous debt load under which the world is struggling from overwhelming the financial system and causing a complete collapse.

Each of them has assured the pubic that such action was both completely necessary and absolutely temporary.

The US Federal Reserve has now finished its (third) taper and, the general narrative is that the operation has been a success and has, in fact, passed without any major problems occurring. That sound you can hear if you listen carefully outside the Marriner S. Eccles building is an outbreak of back-slapping.

However, to accept this as gospel is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Attention must be paid to the underlying reality if one is to avoid the pitfalls which are all too prevalent in listening to the words of public figures whose very existence currently hinges on conveying a set of beliefs to a particular populace with the singular aim of instilling within that populace a level of confidence sufficient to render their economic malfeasance successful.

Without that confidence, they are dead in the water.

The chart below shows the gyrations of the S&P 500 since August 2013 when the Fed’s QE3 program was in full swing. It’s been a long time since ”gyrations” was an appropriate noun to use in relation to the S&P 500 but, almost imperceptibly, it has become entirely apropos.


As you can see, the chart is characterized by long periods of steady appreciation followed by reasonably sharp corrections, after which the rise has resumed.

However, as the end of the Taper drew near, the dips became more pronounced as investors feared the uncertainty of a world without central bank support.

After one more in a long series of ”V-bottoms” in October—right before the scheduled end of the Taper—the market climbed back to yet another all-time high and all was seemingly right in the world—the Taper had been executed flawlessly and a sigh of relief could be heard.
Only, as you can see from the chart, in the post-Taper world, we have seen the return of volatility to markets (a return that can be seen more clearly in the chart below which shows three-month S&P volatility).

After a long (three-year) period of steadily declining volatility, the post-taper environment has seen the first trend-change to the upside and this heralds the return of volatility to a market in which suppression has been the name of the game in order to generate that confidence about which we spoke a few paragraphs ago.

Because of the importance of confidence, central bankers have, as GaveKal’s renowned Anatole Kaletsky recently pointed out, been granted a “license to lie“—and lie they have. Do they believe they are lying? Possibly not, but I feel certain they will have already justified in their own minds the reasons why they might have to do so well in advance of any possible mendacity and so, when the time comes, the transition is a seamless one.

Jean-Claude Juncker—one-time Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the longest serving head of government in the European Union as well as one of the longest-serving democratically-elected leaders in the world when he left office in 2013—gave us a peek behind the veil when he famously said, at the height of the eurozone crisis after being caught red-handed blurring the line between truth and fiction, that “when it gets serious, you have to lie.”

Juncker was one of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty and largely responsible for the construction of clauses on Economic and Monetary Union within that hallowed document and so, as interests go, it is safe to call his “vested“ when it comes to preserving a legacy.

Juncker was also voted European Banker of the Year in 2008. Just sayin’...

Anyway, whatever the reasons behind Messrs. Greenspan and King’s sudden reversal in tone, they are irrelevant. It is clear that the world’s central bankers leave their beliefs and principles at the door when they take office, only to pick them up again on the way out in the interests of protecting their legacy. What they do in between those two short journeys is dictated by the position and not what they, in their heart of hearts, know to be in the best interests of the citizens under their auspices.

In mid-January, we had another central banker demonstrate the danger of becoming too aligned with promises emanating from those august institutions when the Swiss National Bank governor, Thomas B. Jordan removed the Swiss Franc’s peg to the euro with this short statement:

“The Swiss National Bank (SNB) is discontinuing the minimum exchange rate of CHF 1.20 per euro.”

No fanfare, no apology (though one was most certainly warranted as a matter of three days prior, a high-ranking official reaffirmed that the peg was “a pillar of Swiss monetary policy“). Clearly, when the earlier statement was made, it was a bare-faced lie and, in his press conference, Jordan explained (though not in direct relation to his colleague’s statement) why such mendacity was not only warranted, but required:

“If you decide to exit such a policy, you have to take the markets by surprise,”

The game has shifted in the last several weeks and central bankers are now not only fighting a rearguard action but each other in an attempt to protect their own economies from the ravages of a debt deleveraging.

Once they have left office, there will be plenty of time to try and rewrite history through autobiographies, tell-all accounts (yes, Timothy Geithner, I’m looking at you - and you, Hank Paulson) and after-dinner speeches in which they explain that they did what they had to do to “save the system“—even though it went against their core principles—but for now, for investors lulled to sleep by six years of whispered promises, it is time to wake up and understand that the only time we will find out what those in control of the world’s monetary rudder really think is the appropriate action will be after they have handed the baton to the next poor unfortunate soul.

With this shift will come increased volatility, harsher focus on valuations, creditworthiness and economic numbers and a reduction in the willingness to blindly believe in the narrative being disseminated from seats of power around the world. The landscape has changed.

Turing once wrote “If a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.” But today, the world is seemingly pinning all its hopes for economic and monetary stability on the twin machines of government and central banking being both.

Meanwhile, during their time in office at least, politicians and central bankers put aside their real feelings about what must be done in favor of expediency and then pretend to the world that the actions taken, whilst dictated by circumstance, were in everybody’s best interests.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real Imitation Game.


Evergreen Virtual Advisor, February 6, 2015

Don’t Worry, ECB Happy…

So, the latest 'bazooka' is finally unveiled and (surprise) it was ever-so-slightly higher than the number the ECB leaked to the market as a trial balloon this week - just to make SURE that the market's initial reaction was positive.

In the ensuing press conference, an interesting exchange happened between Draghi and a journalist.

Draghi was asked the following question (paraphrased slightly because I didn't take notes):

"Can we assume that this is everything left in your toolbox? Can we assume that the next move by the ECB will be to move to a tightening cycle?"

Drag's response was telling. He literally laughed in the guy's face. He said "I could make so many jokes but perhaps this is not the time for jokes".

QE will once again fail and they will resort to the only weapon they have left - more QE.

Which is lucky because, as Soc Gen has already pointed out, the 'bazooka' won't be enough:

"The potential amount of QE needed is €2-3 trillion! Hence for inflation to reach close to a 2.0% threshold medium term, the potential amount of asset purchases needed is €2-3tn, not a mere €1tn."

"The potential amount of QE needed is €2-3 trillion! Hence for inflation to reach close to a 2.0% threshold medium term, the potential amount of asset purchases needed is €2-3tn, not a mere €1tn."

The response to failed QE programs is always the same; "They just didn't print ENOUGH money" and it is always impossible to disprove, of course, but by throwing in both their hat AND the towel, the ECB today brought the end of the era of supreme confidence in Central Bankers that much closer to a close.

Got gold?

From Tranquility To Volatility

OK... so the SNB didn't consult me before they made their move on Thursday so I didn't get a chance to write about it this week (I was already knee deep in Greece when the news hit the wires) but you can be sure there will be no prizes awarded for guessing the subject of the next edition...

However, on hearing the news, my first (and instinctive) reaction was "There goes the blind faith that markets had been placing in central bankers".

If I'm right, then the world which began on January 16, 2015 is going to look a hell of a lot different to that which we were living in on January 15.

This inconceivable monetary experiment in which we have all been coopted as lab rats was 100% reliant upon us having complete faith in central bankers.

They tell us that they have our backs and that it's safe to buy risk assets and we do just that. Simple.

Of course, that, like everything else, works until it doesn't and the SNB just became the first central bank to not only break a promise to us, but do so in a way that causes the maximum amount of pain to the maximum amount of people (witness the short CHF positioning below).

Believing completely in central banks is like having a pet alligator; everything is wonderful until, lulled by the fact that most of the time alligators just lay in the sun doing nothing, you forget just how dangerous an alligator is and it bites your leg off.

The SNB just let the alligator off the leash and I guarantee you that the wild ride in the CHF that we saw on Thursday is just the beginning of the volatilityCHF Futures Positioninig


The new Things That Make You Go Hmmm… kicks off with a look at the most recent set of numbers out of Japan - numbers which once again reinforce the folly of Abenomics.

As the savings rate turns negative for the first time since records began and wages continue to stagnate, I talk to Dr. Jim Walker (who has a few choice, non-consensus words for the course Japan is plotting), examine the Japanese aversion to immigration, find out why foreign investors have had enough of Japanese equities and revisit December 29, 1989 - when a young, bemused Englishman found himself standing on a desk 6,000 miles from home clapping and cheering a milestone that, 25 years later, remains untouched since...

Continue reading

Don’t Panic!!! (Until Instructed To Do So)

It never ceases to amaze me that investors seem to need absolute confirmation from an organised body before they are prepared to countenance what is sitting right in front of their eyes.

Today we had markets falling significantly - why? Well supposedly because the World Bank has cut its forecast for global growth for 2014 and 2015.

Anybody to whom this is a revelation hasn't been paying attention.

It's quite clear that global growth has stalled and, as much as many people are determined to lay the recent weakness in the oil price at the feet of a group of geopolitical Machiavellian players, there is another reason why oil falls - always - and that is a slowdown in economic activity.

Now we see copper heading in the same direction and this is suddenly 'news' to people because the World Bank reduces its forecast for 2014 growth by 0.4%.

If this isn't a lesson to anybody who decries the value in contrarian investing principles then they aren't paying proper attention.

<clears throat>

US equities ARE hugely overstretched given the underlying economic situation in the USA. Gold IS hugely undervalued given both the supply & demand dynamics AND the wanton abandonment of monetary prudence. Most Government bonds are at utterly absurd valuations and WILL cause enormous losses and 'growth' in China is nowhere near 7%.

But don't take my word for it... wait for the World Bank to tell us...