News and views on the coming collapse
Home » Posts tagged 'asset prices' (Page 2)
To all those investors expecting the Fed to step in to backstop the recent weakness seen in the stock market, Wolf Richter warns: The cavalry isn’t coming.
After years of force-feeding too much liquidity into world markets, the central banking cartel is now aware of the Franken-markets it has created. And now with a new head at the US Federal Reserve, and soon at the ECB, central bankers have shifted their priority from supporting asset prices to now actively engineering lower prices.
They just don’t want prices to drop too far too fast.
Of course, the big question is: how much control do they really have? The situation may very quickly get out of their hands.
But the big takeaway is to expect lower prices across the board for nearly every “risk on” asset: stocks (including and especially the FANGS), corporate bonds and real estate. The Fed is working to reduce investor exuberance — and as many bloodied contrarian investors will warn you — Don’t fight the Fed:
Now we’re in an environment where we have an Everything Bubble, and even though there’s still a few central bankers out there that say that they can’t see the bubble, others have now acknowledged it. Of course they don’t call it a “bubble”; they say that prices are “elevated”. So they’re seeing this. In my opinion, a lot of the responses from the Fed are not really about inflation; they’re really about trying to avoid the asset bubble from getting any bigger. They’re trying to avoid a deflation of that asset bubble that could be very messy for the financial system.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Dysfunction of the money-system underpins the problems of the world’s multiple converging crises. Discuss.
Might that assertion be taking an ideological position, encouraged by the echo chambers of like-minded twitterati? This piece is an attempt to tease out the nature of the underlying connection, and in doing so describe some of the attack surfaces that are available to those bent on change.
From an environmental perspective the most damaging money-system dysfunction is the misallocation of credit. Commercial banks have been given the responsibility of deciding who should receive loans – for capital investment, mortgages and asset purchases for example – and the privilege of charging interest on those loans. They are largely unconstrained in this process – while there are theoretical constraints, in practice their main concern is making sure they get their full whack of interest due over the term of the loan. They therefore generally prefer lending secured against an asset that they can repossess if necessary than against the uncertain (and difficult to assess – at least for today’s disconnected and centralised account managers) future productive capability of entrepreneurial projects. This is borne out by figures for productive investment which tend to show lending for productive use at about 15%.
The first consequence of this preference is that the banks find themselves in an unholy alliance with asset owners, with a joint interest in ever rising asset prices and a reluctance to moderate activity in asset markets lest their loans lose collateral value. They all know in their hearts that this will eventually mean painful busts. But they also know that when the time comes they will be bailed out by the government, that many of their more savvy and comfortably-connected friends will have disposed of their assets ahead of the peak, and that the greater part of the associated pain will be experienced by less well connected ‘outsiders’. There is no real sanction on the banks or their senior management from buying into this toxic cycle. So we should not be surprised when it repeats. They operate in any case with a sort of herd mentality, and taking a heterodox stance would fail the wine-bar peer-reviews. There is no way that this cycle can avoid the progressive concentration of wealth. (In passing we might note that this in turn puts a misplaced emphasis on philanthropy and volunteerism as means to address society’s ills.)
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Wolf Richter on the Keiser Report.
The Fed is trying to accomplish a soft landing — hence the extraordinarily slow rate hikes — but our history with soft landings is very spotty, and there has never been more debt than now:
Investors in the corporate bond market, particularly in junk bonds, are still blowing off the Fed. But not much longer. Read… Corporate Bond Market Gets Ready for Big Reset
As anyone who owns a house will tell you, all property markets are, ‘local.’ Location is key. Nonetheless, when looking for indicators of a change in sentiment with regard to asset prices in general, residential real estate lends support to equity bull markets. Whilst it usually follows the performance of the stock market, this time it may be a harbinger of austerity to come.
The most expensive real estate is to be found in areas of limited supply; as Mark Twain once quipped, when asked what asset one should invest in, he replied, ‘Buy land, they’re not making it anymore.’ Mega cities are a good example of this phenomenon. They are a sign of progress. As Ian Stewart of Deloittes put it in this week’s Monday Briefing – How distance survived the communication revolution:-
In 2014, for the first time, more of the world’s population, some 54%, lived in urban than rural areas. The UN forecasts this will rise to 66% by 2050. Businesses remain wedded to city locations. More of the UK’s top companies are headquartered in London than a generation ago. The lead that so-called mega cities, those with populations in excess of 10 million, such as Tokyo and Delhi, have over the rest of the country has increased.
Proximity matters, and for good reasons. Cities offer business a valuable shared pool of resources, particularly labour and infrastructure. Bringing large numbers of people and businesses together increase the chances of matching the right person with the right job.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller told CNBC Tuesday that a market correction could come at any time and without warning…
“People ask ‘well what will trigger [a market correction]?’ But it doesn’t need a trigger, it’s the dynamics of bubbles inherently makes them come to a sudden end eventually…”
Shiller, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2013 for his work on asset prices and inefficient markets, said that markets could “absolutely suddenly turn” and that he believed the bull market was hard to attribute totally to the U.S. political scene.
“The strong bull market in the U.S. is often attributed to the situation in the U.S. but it’s not unique to the U.S. anyway, so it’s hard to know what the world story is that’s driving markets up at this time, I think it’s more subtle than we recognize,”
Additionally Shiller writes in Project Syndicate that it is impossible to pin down the full cause of the high price of the US stock market, warning that this fact alone should remind all investors of the importance of diversification, and that the overall US stock market should not be given too much weight in a portfolio.
The level of stock markets differs widely across countries. And right now, the United States is leading the world. What everyone wants to know is why – and whether its stock market’s current level is justified.
We can get a simple intuitive measure of the differences between countries by looking at price-earnings ratios. I have long advocated the cyclically adjusted price-earnings (CAPE) ratio that John Campbell (now at Harvard University) and I developed 30 years ago.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
I hate to break it to you, but chances are you’re just not prepared for what’s coming. Not even close.
Don’t take it personally. I’m simply playing the odds.
After spending more than a decade warning people all over the world about the futility of pursuing infinite exponential economic growth on a finite planet, I can tell you this: very few are even aware of the nature of our predicament.
An even smaller subset is either physically or financially ready for the sort of future barreling down on us. Even fewer are mentally prepared for it.
And make no mistake: it’s the mental and emotional preparation that matters the most. If you can’t cope with adversity and uncertainty, you’re going to be toast in the coming years.
Those of us intending to persevere need to start by looking unflinchingly at the data, and then allowing time to let it sink in. Change is coming – which isn’t a problem in and of itself. But it’s pace is likely to be. Rapid change is difficult for humans to process.
Those frightened by today’s over-inflated asset prices fear how quickly the current bubbles throughout our financial markets will deflate/implode. Who knows when they’ll pop? What will the eventual trigger(s) be? All we know for sure is that every bubble in history inevitably found its pin.
These bubbles – blown by central bankers serially addicted to creating them (and then riding to the rescue to fix them) – are the largest in all of history. That means they’re going to be the most destructive in history when they finally let go.
Millions of households will lose trillions of dollars in net worth. Jobs will evaporate, causing the tens of millions of families living paycheck to paycheck serious harm.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Two weeks ago, we discussed the recent report from Artemis Capital Management, “Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk – Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987”, authored by Christopher Cole. See “In the Shadows Of Black Monday – “Volatility Isn’t Broken…The Market Is”. The full report can be accessed here.
In the Global Short Volatility Bubble:
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
There is a prevailing view that Bubbles reflect asset price gains beyond what is justified by fundamental factors. I counter with the argument that the inflation of underlying fundamentals – revenues, earnings, cash-flow, margins, etc. – is a paramount facet of Bubble Dynamics (How abruptly did the trajectory of earnings reverse course in 2001 and 2009?).
With extremely low rates, loose corporate Credit Availability, large deficit spending, inflating asset prices and a glut of “money” sloshing about, there is bountiful fodder for spending and corporate profits. And with technology one of the more beguiling avenues to employ the cash-flow bonanza – and tech start-ups, the cloud, AI, Internet of Things, robotic, cybersecurity, etc. white-hot right now – the Gargantuan Technology Oligopoly today luxuriates at the Bubble Core.
By this time, expanding global technology capacity is a straightforward endeavor, while the industry for now enjoys booming demand and outsized margins. This confluence of extraordinary attributes provides “tech” the latitude to operate as a powerful black hole absorbing global purchasing power (throughout economies as well as financial markets). As such, it has been a case of the greater the scope of the Bubble, the more supply of “tech” available to weigh on overall goods and services pricing pressures. Central bankers continue to misconstrue this dynamic, instead perceiving irrepressible disinflationary forces that they are compelled to counter (with year after year after year of flagrant monetary stimulus).
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Question: How do you know when you are in a bubble?
Answer: Gauge asset prices against a standard, foundational premise to determine if the price appreciation is warranted.
Lucky for us, the Federal Reserve provides exactly what is needed to show how unjustifiable current prices are against households disposable income. The chart below is all US household’s net worth (current value of all real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.) as a percentage of their disposable personal income (disposable income is what they have left to spend or save after paying their taxes). To round out the picture, I’ve added in the net growth in full time workers during each period, dramatically decelerating.
Since 1970, every time asset values have risen above 520% of households disposable income (the dashed line in the chart) then the US has been in a bubble and a subsequent crash has followed. This has simply meant asset values growing much faster than households income or households capability to sustain those price increases. The depth of each crash has been relative to the overshoot of asset values on the upside.
Why???
I hear much discussion that the millennials are the largest age group in US history and are expected to drive growth in demand. However, most people fail to understand what this truly means. The millennials are just marginally larger than the boomers but what this truly means is zero growth. The millennials are just meeting the previous high water mark the boomers set. When the boomers came through, they nearly doubled the previous high water mark.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
One week after the second biggest weekly inflow to Wall Street on record, the “risk on” rotation ended abruptly in the ensuing five days, when as Bank of America writes overnight, it observed “Inflows to structural “deflation”, outflows from cyclical “inflation”; with oil the “poster child” for this trend.”
Half a year after central bankers around the globe rejoiced that the Trump victory may finally spur the long-delayed period of global reflation, that hope is now dead and buried (even as the Fed keeps hiking into some imaginary inflation wave) which BofA’s Michael Hartnett observes not only in asset prices, but also in fund flows.
As the BofA strategist writes in a note aptly titled “Bubble, bubble, oil & trouble”, the big flow message “is structural “deflation” dominating cyclical “inflation” (oil price is the “poster child” for victory of deflation): outflows from TIPS; first outflows from bank loans in 32 weeks; outflows from US value funds in 8 of past the 9 weeks; 1st inflows to REITS in 11 weeks; biggest inflows to utilities in 51 weeks.”
More importantly the tsunami of recent inflows, mostly into US equities, appears to finally be slowing: following sizable inflows to equities & bonds last week ($33.5bn in aggregate), a week of modest flows: $5.0bn into bonds, $0.5bn into equities, $0.8bn outflows from gold. Additionally, after the recent “tech wreck”, flows show confirm that contrarians – or simply stopped out algos – have flirted with sector rotation as inflows to energy ($0.4bn) were offset by outflows from tech ($0.2bn) & growth funds ($2.1bn);
Looking at BofA’s client base, Harnett notes that private clients were also sellers of tech past 4 weeks; and adds that despite the 20% YTD decline in oil price, energy funds ($2.8bn) and MLPs ($2.6bn) see inflows in 2017.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Gov’t must be ‘careful about intervening,’ says Mike de Jong, who has a stake in several properties.
Finance Minister Mike de Jong’s most recent financial disclosure shows he received rental income from seven investment properties. Photo: BC Gov’t Flickr.
The hit from anything the provincial government might do to drop real estate prices in B.C. would be particularly painful for investors like de Jong, who has a personal ownership stake in seven investment properties in Abbotsford, an hour’s drive from Vancouver.
“You’ve got to be careful about intervening, about having the state intervene to try and regulate pricing, or depress pricing,” de Jong said last May as the #Don’tHave1Million campaign drew attention to the negative effects of high house prices in the region.
“Those who are expressing a concern, I think if you really assess what they are seeking, it is a reduction in the value of homes in Vancouver and that will have consequences for a lot of families,” de Jong said.
“If property values in Vancouver were to reduce by, let us say five per cent, that could easily translate into a reduction in equity for families that own homes in Vancouver of 60, 70 or $80,000,” he said.
“All I’m saying is you’ve got to be careful about how you use the tools and levers of taxation, and you have to be clear on what your objective is.”
If de Jong sounded more sympathetic to people who already own homes than to people trying to enter the market, it could be because like them he would be personally exposed to the pain that would come with dropping prices.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
It looks to me as though this linkage is about to cause a very substantial disruption to the economy, as oil limits, as well as other energy limits, cause a rapid shift from the benevolent version of the economic supercycle to the portion of the economic supercycle reflecting contraction. Many people have talked about Peak Oil, the Limits to Growth, and the Debt Supercycle without realizing that the underlying problem is really the same–the fact the we are reaching the limits of a finite world.
There are actually a number of different kinds of limits to a finite world, all leading toward the rising cost of commodity production. I will discuss these in more detail later. In the past, the contraction phase of the supercycle seems to have been caused primarily by too high population relative to resources. This time, depleting fossil fuels–particularly oil–plays a major role. Other limits contributing to the end of the current debt supercycle include rising pollution and depletion of resources other than fossil fuels.
The problem of reaching limits in a finite world manifests itself in an unexpected way: slowing wage growth for non-elite workers. Lower wages mean that these workers become less able to afford the output of the system. These problems first lead to commodity oversupply and very low commodity prices. Eventually these problems lead to falling asset prices and widespread debt defaults.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
It used to be the provenance of “conspiracy theorists” – alleging that central banks have manipulated, rigged or otherwise broken the “efficient market.” That is no longer the case.
As we previously showed, now even the big banks admit it.
However, since for some unknown reason the broader media has yet to catch on to this concept which exonerates the “tinfoil” crowd and makes a mockery of the “bull market” of the past 7 years while posing some very troubling questions about how it all ends, here again is Bank of America explaining not only how “central banks have unfairly inflated asset prices” with the “market aware the price of risk is not correct”, but why the biggest risk to the financial system is a “loss of confidence in this omnipotent CB put”
And the cherry on top comes from JPMorgan which declares “Mission accomplished – QE drives up equity valuations”
Sources: “Fragility is the new volatility” by Benjamin Fowler, Global Equity Derivatives Rsch, Bank of America, December 9, 2015; “Eye on the Market Outlook 2016” by J.P.Morgan Private Bank
We expect everyone to have gone through this “local tail” event scenario at least once and likely many times, one which we predicted would become the norm back in 2009, and one which has, as of 2015, become the norm.
Thank the Fed.
But don’t take it from a “fringe, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory” website which has been repeating this for so many years we have to dig deeper with every passing day to keep ourselves amused at this farce: here is Bank of America’s head of global equity derivatives research, Benjamin Bowler, with a piece slamming the massively manipulated “market” that 7 years of global central bank intervention has created, and a simple schematic which demonstrates just how broken everything is, and why one should expect many, many more such “local tail” freakouts in the future.
From Bank of America
Central bank’s risk manipulation well explains local tailsA good way to explain why we have seen local tail risks arise so frequently since central banks began to heavily manipulate asset prices is with the following analogy, illustrated in Exhibit 1. Essentially central banks, by unfairly inflating asset prices have compressed risk like a spring to unfairly tight levels. Unfortunately, the market is aware the price of risk is not correct, but they can’t fight it, and everyone is forced to crowd into the same trade. By manipulating markets they have also reduced investors’ inherent conviction by rendering fundamentals less relevant.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Your country faces a stagnating economy. Let us assume your Prime Minister (or President if that is who holds the executive power) seeks advice from two imaginary economists.
PM: You two economists have different views on what our economic policy should be. What is your advice?
FIRST ECONOMIST (Austrian school): Prime Minister, the reason we face a stagnant economy is your central bank perpetuated the credit cycle by suppressing interest rates when the economy turned down after the banking crisis and lending risk escalated. That has left us with a legacy of under-performing businesses, which should have been left to go bankrupt. Instead they are struggling under a burden of unrepayable debt. Capital is not being reallocated to the new enterprises of the future. The dynamism of free markets has been throttled.
The extra money and credit created by the banking system has not been applied to the real economy. Instead they are fuelling a financial boom in asset prices, which have become dangerously separated from production values.
Eventually, current monetary policy will lead to a fall in the purchasing power of the currency, and the central bank will be forced to raise interest rates to a level that will precipitate the next financial crisis, if the crisis has not already occurred by then. Overvalued assets become exposed to debt liquidation. It happens every time, and if you think the last crisis, which led to the Lehman collapse was bad, on current monetary policies the next one will be much worse, just as Lehman was much worse than the aftermath of the dot-com boom.
A monetary policy that relies on the transfer of wealth from savers to debtors always fails in the end, as certainly as death and taxes exist. It is also the real reason the bankers are getting wealthy while ordinary people become poorer.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
