Daily Market Commentary and Analysis

Currency Currents, our free daily blog, sent directly to your email box.

Your email:

Follow Us ...

Listen To This Blog

Our flagship newsletter, as a reader and subscriber to our BlackSwan blog you stay tuned-in to our current global-macro view and our analysis of key investment themes driving currency and commodity prices.

Nothing is off limits to us in this freewheeling look at the markets. But ultimately we have one goal in mind: to help you get a handle on the key investment themes driving global capital flow. Because if you know where the money is going, it increases the probability that your position in the market will be a profitable one.

The price tag may say 'FREE' ... but it's worth a heck of a lot.

Posts by category

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Loop of confusion; and 4 euro-related reasons to be bullish now ...

  
  
  

comic“Most attempts to find out what nations really are have suffered from an intrinsic defect: they have been attempts to define the general concept of nationality. People have said that the nation is this or that, apparently believing that all that mattered was to find the right definition; once found, this would be applicable to all nations equally. They have adduced language or territory, written literature, history, form of government or so-called national feeling; and in every case the exceptions have been more important than the rule. It is been like clutching at some adventitious garment, in the belief that the living creature within could be thus grasped.”

-Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power

I think by most conventional measures, used by most professional investors, European Central Bank Chief Mario Draghi has been a success.  He has bolstered the returns for equity funds considerably since his decision to utilize a three-year term, instead of one year, in the ECB recent liquidity injection to European banks.   

The fact is I missed the trees for the forest on this, and it has hurt.  Failing to understand this lending—which reduced stigma associated with 1-year terms and better matched the funding needs of banks, led to more participation than expected.  This in turn created a classic self-reinforcing positive feedback loop for asset prices:

  1. Increased demand for ECB funds stemmed liquidity risk

  2. Reduction of liquidity risk reduced bond risk premiums

  3. Liquidity helped banks buy local sovereign debt

  4. Demand for debt by banks was followed by funds

  5. This demand for European paper increased demand for euros (pushing up its value)

  6. Increased prices (lower interest rates) on sovereign debt increased the value of existing bank collateral

  7. Rising European banking stock prices reduce their cost of capital

  8. Rising European financial stocks begets more money flow from funds

  9. Bolstered European bank collateral reduces the need to de-lever from Eastern & Central Europe and Asian trade finance (which Europe banking represents and inordinately large impact).

Extending the loop to positive impact on global risk assets, as the core of systemic risk concern was laser-like focus on Eurozone bank liquidity problems, US stocks started rocketing on the ECB three-year term announcement back in mid-December.  And yes, our friend Ben played a strong supporting role with his announcement US short rates likely remain in the cellar through 2014 if he is still the boss.

Mea culpa squared!!!

Of course the multi-billion dollar questions:

  • Is this a new paradigm? 

  • Is the Eurozone crisis behind us for a while now?

  • Should we care at all about Greece? 

  • Does leverage on central bank balance sheets matter (ECB is lowering collateral standards yet again by passing the decision on what is adequate collateral to individual country central banks; not perfect to say the least but expedient)? 

  • Is the nasty fall in German exports reported today something to worry about, or is it rearview mirror stuff? 

I guess the yes or no question to summarize all above is: Is this positive feedback loop we’ve witnessed since mid-December already imbedded in price?

Consider:

  1. The ECB plans to offer another round of three-year funding at month end and expects the participation to be larger than last time.  Shouldn’t that be bullish given the impact just reviewed?

  2. The Fed seems quite happy supplying more cash to the market and seems to be committed to doing just that on any signs of weakness.  Shouldn’t that be bullish?

  3. China is being pushed by the IMF and some policy makers inside the country to initiate another big blast of stimulus (flame thrower switched on, in other words). Shouldn’t that be bullish?

  4. And Clint Eastwood tells us its only half-time in America.  Shouldn’t that be bullish?

I guess the yes or no question to summarize all four considerations above is: If I can spout those four seemingly bullish items, is it already imbedded in the price? 

Sorry, this Currency Currents issues seems to have turned out to be nothing more than a self-feeding loop of questions and confusion.  But then again, is this game anything more than that?

The trend is your friend until it’s not.  Something we can count on indeed.

Comments

and what about the CoT?! The Commercials have been net short for a long time...
Posted @ Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:38 AM by Hamish
Does this explain Bernanke's unusual public, multi-year commitment to hold rates as helpful (and hopeful) coordination with Draghi?
Posted @ Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:28 PM by JNR
Putting aside market concerns (which is your interest), I believe the EU has come to realize that Greece cannot be salvaged; that an orderly bankruptcy will ensue and the EU will save their 'powder' to stabilize Portugal and Italy.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:32 PM by ray
As an accountant, my first thought is the 3-year debt vs 1 year debt improves the bank's balance sheet tramendously. sometimes i use this to improve my own BS. it may well be one of the main reasons. because i don't think the intention was to promote the fin assets. the other reason was of course to help the sovereigns in order to secure some more time to find a solution. but this latter may be destructive as the more time they have the less they are motivated to make difficult decisions. if i understand this then Draghi understands for sure too.  
 
more longer term money points to inflation rather than to deflation. 
 
let's try to analyze this in a context of interests of the key players - svereigns and their largest creditors. 
 
INTERESTS 
 
Debtors would love to see their debts depreciating vs their revenues. Amin. Cause they see no way they can increase their revenues in this "ustarity" environment. 
 
Creditors have no hope to collect their AR in the present environment. Cause 300%+ to 400%+ debt levels cannot be rectified within any reasonable nor imaginable period of time. So the crditors may be willing to accept their nominal claims fully satisfied in an infaltianary environment, provided it will let them increase their revenues. 
 
So... seems like superinfltion is in the interest of the both core players... the marketmakers. 
 
but if there are winners, there should be the losers, right? under this scenario the losers are u and me. and the billions of other real wealth creators. do you think the winners have real problem with us paying for their survival given they are in control? banking system, army, formaal authority are what they control... don't you think the have all the means to make u and me pay? 
 
Posted @ Monday, February 27, 2012 5:19 PM by oleg
In a globalized environment (i.e. any scenario is difficult to implement geven several main players)... where there are elections every 4 to 6 years.. and the central banks can print money without limits (main difference vs the Great Depression)... superinflation may be the only manageable option.
Posted @ Monday, February 27, 2012 5:31 PM by oleg
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics