Are long bear market rallies history?

December 2nd, 2008

Ok, last financial post, I swear.

I’ll try my hand at the dangerous game of internet financial prognostication, here. I have no clue what’s going to happen on the market, but I’d just like to point out something that I haven’t seen anybody really talk about yet. For all the talk about comparing this present market to the 90% bear market of the early 30s, there is one huge, obvious difference: information moves a lot faster today, and we have much more extensive “instrumentation” on the worlds economies. Not only does the flow of information mean that markets will adjust quicker, but the liquidity provided by ubiquitous electronic trading and derivatives means that market swings will occur on a much shorter time scale. Perhaps most importantly, we have much more universal access to economic data than ever before. This means that price information and the beginning of deflation have becomes apparent much quicker, and to a wider audience, than they did during the great depression.

The upshot of all of this, if I’m right (which is a big if), is that we may never see the kind of months long rallies that occured during the bear market that started in 1929. Maybe they’ll just last a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks. A corrolary of this is that volatility will be much higher than in the aftermath of the 1929 crash. This may be one explanation for why we’ve seen historic levels on the CBOE volatility index (VIX). Usually the VIX peaks around 40 or 50, but these days we’re seeing sustained levels around 70.

So, while I’m going out on a limb, if you’re sitting on cash and tempted to try to time the market and ride the rally we’re currently in, you might want to rethink it. In this day of electronic data and trading, I think the aftermath of the financial crisis will be an extended period of volatility that will eclipse anything the market has seen in its entire history.

Schwarzenegger to nation: Let’s drag out the recession as long as possible, ok?

December 1st, 2008

(Sorry for the flurry of exceedingly boring economics posts, but I’m a bit preoccupied.)

The central cause of the current recession (or maybe depression) was the overextension of credit, especially in the housing sector. So, how do you get out of that kind of jam? Foreclosures and time. Those that can’t afford their homes will have to lose them, and the banks will get back as much as they can, allowing their balance sheets to be repaired up to a point. Those that can afford their houses will just have to stop taking on more debt, and begin the process of paying off the principle to the point where the loan is rightside up. This will eventually lead to healthy bank balance sheets, and thus the resumption of normal (but hopefully not excessive) lending that will get industry moving again.

If you really wanted to screw with the country, what would be the worst thing you could do? Halt foreclosures and/or slow down the repayment of debt. And yet that’s exactly what Arnold “I am here from the future to destroy your economy” Schwarzenegger has just proposed. He has asked that state lawmakers impose a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. That sounds really good, but another way of saying it is that it’s a three month state imposed time window wherein banks will not be able to repair their balance sheets. Given that California is ground zero for the housing bubble, this is pretty significant, and in my amateur opinion is tantamount to extending the recession by at least three months. It’s also a slippery slope, and given that it’s highly unlikely a farm hand living in a $750k house (yes, true anecdote) will be able to suddenly improve his cash flow in 90 days in the middle of a recession, I can’t imagine the moratorium will do anything besides delay the day of reckoning.

It would also be the height of selfishness for Californians to use the power of their state government to clog up the nation’s financial system in order to avoid having to deal with the consequences of their feckless consumerism. Where California goes, so goes the country, and that includes really bad ideas. I expect other states, such as Nevada, to follow suit with similar populist legislation. Hopefully the Feds will clamp down before this gets out of hand, because otherwise I can see economically illiterate do-gooder state legislators launching the mother of all depressions by bringing down our entire financial system through a morass of legislation designed to prevent banks from clearing bad credit.

Why is foreclosure considered such an anathema, anyway, at least compared to the prospect of having our entire financial system collapse? People will be released of their debt burden, with the only consequence for their foolishness being that for the next seven years they’ll have to rent an apartment at a much cheaper monthly payment than they had before. I can’t imagine that’s such a bad thing, especially when the alternative is for the credit crunch to deepen, an outcome that would have potentially dire consequences for everybody. Given that the Fed has been only marginally successful in freeing credit markets, the last thing we need is for states to push the other way by obstructing the neccesary process of clearing out bad debt through default.

The famous L. Tureaud recommends going short equities

November 22nd, 2008

 

Mr. T understands that massive deleveraging will lead to an extended depression.

Mr. T understands that massive deleveraging will lead to an extended depression.

I envision Bernanke in a headlock in one arm, screaming “Ok, ok, we over inflated!” with Paulson in the other, choking “Let go, can’t breathe! Ack. Fine! We lied about TARP! Ok?”

Gold will not neccesarily go up during deflation

November 21st, 2008

Many financial commentators, including the usually on-the-spot Mish Shedlock, have been saying for quite some time that gold will go up in a deflationary environment. Their argument is that gold is money and money does well in deflation. I would be willing to wager that Mish has more understanding of economics while half asleep than I will ever hope to have, and so I assume he’s just being simplistic and inprecise with his words. However, people then repeat it often enough, and it takes on a life of its own. There are many people explicitly claiming that the price of gold should rise during both deflation and inflation. Empirical evidence to the contrary gets brushed aside by either (a) claims that the gold paper market (COMEX) is being manipulated or (b) we’re in a temporary period of gold falling due to hedge fund deleveraging.

However, straightforward logic will tell you that gold should not neccesarily go up in price during deflation. Yes, it’s money, but so are dollars! And since gold is always priced in units of somebody’s money, why should it always go up? Sure, it will increase in value, relative to other assets, during deflation, but without other factors to consider there is no reason to expect it will increase in price. After all, the Yen is money, so shouldn’t it go up during deflation? Obviously, every currency cannot go up relative to every other currency, and so, too, the price of gold will not automatically go up during deflation.

So the real question is this: is gold an attractive currency relative to the dollar? I’d argue it depends on the stuation. If you expect the deflation to be caused by lower demand for goods despite an increase in the money supply, you might consider gold a more stable value. But there are inherent disadvantages to gold, such that all things being equal, cash wins: You can’t pay debts with gold, and none of your future expenses are priced in units of ounces of the stuff. There’s no way to make gold disappear, but in our fractional reserve system, fiat currency can vanish during a period of debt destruction. If I were confident of such a monetary deflation persisting I’d personally want to keep my wealth in the ever scarcer fiat currency, not a form of money that’s dug out of the ground and hoarded by metric tons in central bank vaults around the world.

I certainly agree that it’s possible for gold to go up during deflation, and that if ever there were a situation where it should, it’s perhaps now. All I’m saying is that the idea that gold will always go up during deflation is as nonsensical and meaningless as saying the Euro will always go up during deflation. It depends on the situation. I think the best argument for holding gold during a period of deflation is simply the expectation that the government will soon do everything in its considerable power to reinflate the currency.

(Disclaimer: Lest anyone think I’m the typical antigold zealot sniping at the bugs, I’m actually long a significant portion of my meager grad student portfolio in GG and DGP.)

Can congress really do that?

November 14th, 2008

I suppose another benefit of our troubles is the bright light being shone on the sausage factory of Washington. Apparently our courageous “leaders” in congress are trying to divert billions of dollars from the bank bailout at the even more hopeless cause of our automobile industry (labor and Detroit being two of the most special of the Democrat’s special interests) by revising the intent of the law after the fact. From today’s WSJ:

…This decision was made easier by the fact that the Big Three’s balance sheets have made even sympathetic Washington spenders worry about throwing money at a bankruptcy. Democrats decided it would be better to direct the funds in a way that allowed them to later deny fault.

The plan? Make it the Bush administration’s responsibility to give Detroit cash — namely by claiming after the event that the $700 billion rescue package for financial institutions was in fact a rescue package for auto makers. This was attempted with several hilarious “colloquys” — pre-scripted dialogues between members that were quietly inserted into the Congressional Record after the vote, all aimed at rewriting the “intent” of the law. Say, this one, from Oct. 1:

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin: “As Treasury implements this new program, it is clear to me from reading the definition of financial institution that auto financing companies would be among the many financial institutions that would be eligible sellers to the government. Do you agree?”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: “Yes, for purposes of this act, I agree that financial institution may encompass auto financing companies.”

Fun. Meanwhile, Democrats passed $25 billion in aid for Detroit, though under the careful guise of “green” funds to help it meet new fuel-efficiency standards.

Damn. I’m becoming fairly convinced that in the long run history will look upon the likes of Dodd and Pelosi and Barney Frank and Bush in pretty much all the same light: fools and crooks, all. These are the guys that sat by term after term letting the federal defecit grow and grow while they bought votes with the money. They let the government enable our massive dependency on debt through the Federal Reserve; we talk about the finance “industry” as a private enterprise that got out of hand, but fractional reserve banking doesn’t happen without the government as a neccesary and willing partner. The buck stops (literally) at our government.

These corrupt traitors did much to help get us into this mess, and now we are trusting them with trillions (when all is said and done) to get us out? Having Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in charge of congressional finance committes during a crisis is like opening the cockpit door of a plummeting 747 to find, well, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those two lawyers have about as much training in finance as they do in flying heavy transport aircraft. And their incompetence would be tolerable were it not for their corruption and allegience to the finance industry. It’s like the fox guarding the hen house, if the fox were a dull weasel.

The bright side of the financial crisis

November 11th, 2008

As anybody who reads this or knows me is acutely aware, I’m an eternal optimist. So, even though our financial system is collapsing around us, I see this as a potentially positive development for America.

It is only when things are bleak that people are sufficiently motivated to change. We saw that last Tuesday, as red states turned blue with anger over the direction of the country. More importantly, I think we’re seeing the beginning of something even more productive than the electing of a figurehead for change. The magnitude of the crisis seems to be finally waking people up to the fact that our issues are not just due to one feckless moron who was elected president, but are systemic and of a magnitude that defy simplistic partisan finger pointing.

As depressing as this crisis is, the resulting national depression is–at last–our first rational act as a population in a long time. We should be depressed, but at least take comfort in that it is the first step of the recovery. I’m sorry to succumb to the overused addict metaphors in describing our country’s borrowing and economic discipline, but I do think that one absolutely valid similarity is that sometimes you just need to hit bottom in order to see the truth and take responsibility for yourself.

Well, America, as we sit weeping in $7 trillion of our own vomit, with the Chinese holding back our hair and telling us “Keep borrowing, you’ll feel better,” I think it’s safe to say: Congratulations, fellow citizens, we’ve hit rock bottom. Now, it’s tempting to try to escape back into the bottle (and congress is trying desperately to help us with that) but sometimes when the mind fails the body has a wisdom of its own. We just can’t keep any more credit down, no matter what we try, even the really good stuff from the Fed’s acronymic stash. So, we do what any good problem drinker does who is trying desperately to stretch the metaphor, and drunk dial an ex-girlfriend at 2 am. Except, as these things go, all our friends are junkies, too, and they’re all worse off than we are. All we get is a message from their Swiss roomate that they’re in rehab in Reykjavik and can’t hang around with us any more. We’re on our own.

So there’s nothing to do but buck up and change our ways, and the first place to start is with more cliches. “The night is always darkest before the dawn.” I’m not sure who first uttered that phrase, or what terrible situation prompted them to try to cheer somebody up with it, but it should come with a disclaimer: Dawn not guaranteed in the case of nuclear winter. Rock bottom is really only a call you can make in retrospect. It could, after all, just be the beginning of the dying process. We can use the troubles of the day as a motivation to finally clean up our collective act, or we can use it as a springboard for a spiral into degeneracy and looting. We can tighten our belts and sacrifice, or we can pass off our problems to future generations in the form of further debt, unsustainable bubble economics, or confiscatory taxes on decreasing pockets of wealth. We can chant “Yes we can” or we can quietly do.

What other revelations has the clarity of desperation brought? For one, that while we may have always been capitalists, and always will be, we’ve recently become merciless and stupid capitalists. Unfortunately, capitalism, even at its best, says nothing more than that markets find equilibrium subject to their constraints. We’ve forgotten that the constraints are in our control. If we consider it fair game to freely trade with countries that essentially allow slavery, then our free markets will eventually price labor at slave wages. Capitalism is a ruthless optimizer; it is brutally efficient at pricing but not so good at valuing. I think we may finally see that.

What gives me hope that we’ll choose the right path is that, as hokey as this might sound, Americans are often at their best when the going is toughest. We saw it briefly after 9/11, before our government went insane and declared martial law; we saw it, believe it or not, during Katrina, as Americans donated $2.6 billion of their own money while FEMA squandered their taxes, and over a million volunteers later moved in to supplement an incompetent federal response. There’s not a single country in the world whose citizens are more voluntarily generous than Americans. The common theme is that we are at our best when we depend on ourselves, not politicians. A culture of letting the government take care of us is slowly supplanting a culture of taking care of each other and ourselves; I hope part of hitting rock bottom is that we quit letting politicians be our enabler, and start taking care of ourselves. As Obama says, I am my brother’s keeper. 

I’d like to see GM bailed out by Americans buying their shitty cars, not by Federal loans. I’d like to see inner city poverty decreased not by welfare but because enterprising Americans start factories in Detroit to employ the unemployed, and other Americans buy the overpriced goods from those factories because they say “Made in the USA.” I’d like to see us start putting some effort into paying attention to the actions and ethics of those we do business and bank with, and not foolishly expect some government drone to be effective at doing so in our stead. I’d like to see Americans able to afford homes because we bear the temporary pain of letting their prices fall, not because congress bails out a few homeowners in 2009 at the expense of homeowners in the years 2010-2040. I hope we make healthcare truly more affordable by suing doctors less and using resources more wisely (coverage for Viagra?) not by falling for the false and unsustainable affordability of simply having somebody else pay for it.

You can criticize me for being naive in trusting citizen action over government fiat, but I think the greater naivete is thinking we can solve our problems without it.

Massachusetts decriminalizes owning pot, but not selling it

November 8th, 2008

In their infinite wisdom, the voters of Massachusetts chose to decriminalize the use of pot, but not the sale of it. You get caught with one ounce or less of the chronic, you lose the pot and get a $100 fine. That’s it. Basically, using pot is now considered on par with parking in a handicapped spot, and I hear it’s even more fun. I have no problem with it being decriminalized, and wish that we’d just drop this ludicrous war on drugs (which is really a war on drug users) and legalize everything. However, by decriminalizing owning one ounce, we basically are saying that we’ll still send poor kids to jail for selling it, but rich guys buying it just get a slap on the wrist. So this will drive up the demand for pot, causing more dealers to get caught and sentenced. I’m sure the people supporting the bill weren’t intending to pass an incredibly regressive resolution, but that’s the thing with unintended consequences.

Come on, Massachusetts. Grow a pair and just legalize pot. The war on drugs is doing far more damage to our society than drugs ever could. You’d have to be taking a lot of them not to see that.