Today, we think it would be important to leave the analysis of the latest news aside (including the negotiations on Greece’s debt) and instead, to present a theoretical framework that may allow us to understand the ongoing rally and what may develop during 2012 and beyond. There is nothing more practical than a good theory and a good theory is indeed what we are looking for this morning.

Let’s first examine what we are witnessing today, namely the financing by the Fed and the European Central Bank (“ECB”), of the Eurozone financial system. Below, we describe how it works and we carry the analysis to the extreme. We like challenging models to their extreme implications, because this aprioristic deductive exercise forces us to identify what mainstream economists, many months later than us, usually end up calling “tail risks”.

In step 1 above, we see the first pillar of the EU financial system bailout: The Fed extending US dollar swaps to the ECB, at below market rates. As can be seen, these swaps are an asset of the Fed and a liability to the ECB, which receives US dollars in exchange. With these US dollars, as we explained on December 12th, the Fed avoids a liquidation of US denominated assets by EU banks and the resulting increase in the cost of US dollar funding as well as in counterparty risk, for US financial institutions. These swaps can therefore be seen as vendor financing in favor of US banks, at the expense of American taxpayers and anyone who invests their savings in US dollars (i.e. US banks, via the Fed, provide cheap financing to their trading counterparties, all paid for by a devaluation in the purchasing power of the US dollar. On this matter, please refer our comments on September 12^th, 2011).

However, the extension of USD swaps is not enough to save the status quo. The institutional weakness of the Euro zone, having failed (back in March 2011) the move towards a unified bond and fiscal integration, triggered the jurisdictional arbitrage of deposits (Euro funding). Deposits were taken from banks in the periphery (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy) and shifted to the core (Germany, France, Netherlands). This situation generated a funding squeeze that was and continues to be addressed by long-term refinancing operations (“LTROs”) by the ECB, as shown on step 2. In these operations, the ECB extends collateralized Euros to EU banks. These are loans, assets to the ECB, and liabilities to the EU banks. Since its inception, the ECB has steadily been decreasing the minimum quality of acceptable collateral and increasing the tenor of the financing. Most of these funds have been returning to the ECB as excess reserves, a disturbing fact. But at one point, the repression by the political apparatus and the temptation to use these cheap funds to buy high yielding EU sovereign debt is too strong and we start seeing the use of these funds to monetize (i.e. purchase sovereign bonds in the primary market) EU fiscal deficits. That is shown, as step 3.

On step 3 too, we see that these funds keep open the window for depositors in weak banks to continue the liquidation of their deposits, in exchange of fresh cash. On the other hand, once the governments sell their bonds to the banks, they distribute the Euros issued by the ECB across the Eurozone.

Finally, on step 4, we see the conversion of these Euros by EU depositors and corporations, into US dollars (or Swiss Francs or gold), as a way to protect their savings from the unsustainable status quo: They know that the EU fiscal deficits will remain alive and have uncertainty on the future of the monetary system. Who provides them with the window of opportunity to exchange their Euros for US dollars? Ultimately, the Fed, with the provision of cheap US dollars to the ECB, via swaps.

This circular process, in extremis, brings us to the final line in the graph above, where we show the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the EU banks and the EU depositors & Non-financials. The Fed will own US swaps against which US dollars will have been printed. Yes, printed! This had occurred in the 1920’s and 1930’s, but at least back then, those US dollars were somehow backed by gold reserves. Today, that’s no longer the case. Who will have the US dollars owed to the Fed? Not the EU banks nor the ECB, but the EU depositors & Non-financials! In summary, the people of the Eurozone!

In extremis too, the balance sheet of the ECB will look like that of a middle man. As assets, it will carry long-term refinancings. As liabilities, it will have the US swaps, that it extended to the EU banks. These EU banks however used the euros to buy sovereign debt, which is now their asset, and owe euros (i.e. LTROs) to the ECB. This is a very unstable situation, because if the fiscal situation of the Euro zone does not improve, these sovereign bonds in possession by the EU banks will remain driving capital losses.

This analytical framework leaves us with questions:

If the Fed ends up being the creditor of the EU depositors and corporations…how will it ever get its money back? What will be needed to repatriate these US dollars? We think there are only two ways to solve this problem. The best case and least likely is to see an improvement in the fiscal situation of the Euro zone. If deficits were stabilized or even reduced, the sovereign bonds held by the EU banks would drive capital gains, euros would flow back again to the EU banks in the periphery and US dollars would have to be sold in exchange, to buy these Euros. The EU banks would be then in a position to both return the LTROs and the US dollars to the ECB. The worst case occurs if the Fed implements an exit strategy, raising US dollar interest rates and US dollars flow back to the US. This is also not likely, at least in the short-to-near term, in our view. This would require, a priori, a strong economic recovery.

Another interesting question is related to the Euros in circulation, supplied by the LTROs: What happened to them? In extremis, we see that the EU depositors and Non-financials first took these Euros from the EU banks and later exchanged them for US dollars. Were they taken out of circulation? No, but the velocity of circulation increased, from the ECB to the banks, to the people, and back to the ECB. This is consistent with the monetization of sovereign debt and a context of high inflation. Once again, we note that this analysis is in extremis…For now, we can see it as a natural logical consequence. To mainstream analysts, this is a “tail risk”. The reader is of course free to take a view on this matter.

Please, note that this analysis implies the survival of the Eurozone with the liquidation of sovereign debts via inflation.

Is this status quo sustainable? If not, what will accelerate its demise? How will gold and the rest of the risky asset spectrum behave? Below, we present a flow chart, where we seek to summarize this process.

As we can see, as backdrop to the process described above, the Euro zone today is crowding out private investments, given the high cost of sovereign debt. In addition, it has and continues to implement higher tax rates and further interventionism and financial repression. With the Fed swaps, as we pointed out on September 12th, the Euro is still artificially stronger than without the swaps, which makes the EU less competitive. Finally, the institutional uncertainty of the EU zone remains unadressed. All these factors only contribute to prolong the recession and a high unemployment rate.

The flow chart is clear: As long as the people of the EU put up with this situation and the EU Council, chaired by Mr. Herman Van Rompuy effectively kills democracy at the national level AND as long as the Fed continues to extend US dollar swaps, this status quo will remain. If people revolt and the EU breaks up or if the Fed is no longer politically strong enough to force these swaps, the status quo will collapse.

Contrary to popular belief, this status quo is based on the “coupling” and not “decoupling” of the Fed with the ECB. This coupling relaxes correlations, because the US dollars sent by the Fed to the ECB were printed and nobody in the US feels the immediate pain. Hence, we have the rally in stocks and gold, without any correction in the US Treasuries market.

Whenever the political sustainability of the EU is challenged, we will see a run for liquidity. And 2012 will have many of these panic situations, affecting any late longs in gold or stocks.

Finally, when the “decoupling” takes place, the US dollar can only remain strong if the fiscal situation of the US permits. But we fear that the Fed will embark on interest rate targeting. This is a story for another letter…

The trend is for asset inflation, and will last as long as the people of the EU and the US do not challenge the political status quo.

Martin Sibileau

Please, click here to read this article in pdf format: june-4-20101
This short week is ending on a strange note. We’ve witnessed an escalation in geopolitical conflicts, from the Mediterranean to the Korean Sea. We’ve learned that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will continue to exist for longer than expected. We’ve heard Mr. Buffet express concerns over the state of municipal finances in the US and the systemic significance of credit default swaps. We’ve seen the first G-7 central bank (i.e. Bank of Canada) start raising policy rates.

Finally, yesterday we realized again that the European Union can surprise us in new ways, with the news of Hungary’s fiscal budget gap. We’ve decided to show below a chart (source: Bloomberg) that we think shows what triggered the action yesterday, and which perhaps will contribute to a sell-off today (Friday). In this chart, we see the EUR (in white) vs. the S&P500 (in orange) intraday. We can see how right before 10am ET, as UBS Strategist Manik Narain was making comments on an earlier press conference by Prime Minister Orban in Brussels, the Euro clearly resumed its downward trend.

The chart also shows the S&P500 Index, as a reminder of how global sovereign risk has become. During the rest of the session, the index tried to get back to its intraday high of 1,105.67pts on the back of a rising price of oil, after the announcement by US Minerals Management Service of the prohibition of drilling in the Gulf, regardless of water depth.

What concerned us a bit was what we see as a “relative” (the operative word here is relative) underperformance in gold, in the face of these news. We prefer to think profit-taking may have been involved, given how crowded the short EUR/long gold trade is. But the trend in gold, which is nothing else but the reflection of the steady erosion of fiat currencies, remains upward.

We also think that there continues to be confusion in the analysis of the EUR problem. The latest one consists in criticizing the ECB for lack of clarity in its bond purchases (refer: BankofAmerica’s “Global Rates Weekly: Europe’s turn to act quickly and with clarity” May 28th, 2010). We don’t think this is a problem of “form” but of “content”.

While the Fed gave details about its unsterilized asset purchases, the ECB will not. But we explained why this is so:

The Fed was financing what we call in Economics a “stock”, i.e. “…a variable that is measured at one specific time, and represents a quantity existing at that point in time, which may have accumulated in the past...” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_and_flow ). The ECB is financing “flows”, deficits, or “…a variable that is measured over an interval of time…” Therefore, by definition, we cannot know that variable until the interval of time ends…When will deficits end? Exactly!! Nobody knows! Thus, it is naïve to ask more clarity on this issue from the ECB. The only thing that is clear here is that the Euro, i.e. the liabilities of the ECB will necessarily have to depreciate as long as that interval of time exists, until a clear reduction in the deficits is seen.

At “A View from the Trenches” we were ahead of the curve, anticipating this “content problem” (refer: www.sibileau.com/martin/2010/05/10, “What to expect when you are expecting”), associated with secondary market purchases even before the announcement of the ECB’s plan. Back then we wrote:

“…the ECB would tend to behave like a convertibility board, where sovereign debt is converted to Euros. Therefore, under scenario B, the supply of money would be determined by the growth rate of the EU’s consolidated fiscal deficit! The ECB is not under control but is always “chasing the rabbit”…Governments puke debt and ECB comes after and cleans up buying in the secondary! Thus, what would be the exit strategy under scenario B? In the long run, the only way out for the ECB under scenario B is a consolidated fiscal surplus, which is totally out of ECB’s hands. De facto, the ECB is denied an exit strategy…”

There is also another criticism that we think is unwarranted, namely, the short term nature of the existing currency swap contracts between the ECB and the Fed. It is maintained that because these contracts are renewed on a weekly basis, instead of a longer-term (i.e. 84 days), USD funding conditions remain “uncertain”, which does not contribute to calm the markets. We believe the opposite is true. If the Fed validated the capital investments in the Euro-zone via currency swaps, which are nothing else but a hidden bailout of financial institutions, the Fed would be feeding the bullish trend in gold, at the expense of future higher USD inflation and of US taxpayers, and delaying an adjustment that would affect the ECB’s balance sheet more violently.

The term mismatch in the currency swaps (1-week) and the 3-mo Libor-OIS benchmark, as well as the uncertainty over its renewal sends a clear signal to those yet surviving that they need to unwind and take losses. In 1965, M. Jacques Rueff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Rueff ) described a very similar situation occurring in the ‘20s with “currency swaps” between Britain and France, in this way:

“There is a very interesting document from this period, a letter from Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was then Foreign Secretary in London, to M. Poincaré, who was Prime Minister and Finance Minister in France; it must be of 1928. Sir Austen said, “We know that you are entitled to ask gold for your sterling, but in the frame of the close friendship between Britain and France we ask you, so as to avoid trouble for the City of London, not to do that.” And we were, I must say, weak enough to comply with this request and not ask for gold. The fact that I had such important sterling deposits in London shows that we did not use this right to ask for gold. The adjustment, which would hardly have been felt if carried out on a day-to-day basis, was not made, and we had the fantastic boom of 1927, 1928, and 1929. This explains the depth of the collapse and of the depression, because the adjustment was so long delayed.” (J. Rueff, “The Monetary Sin of the West”, 1972)

In those days, as the Sterling and French Franc were backed by gold, the currency swap consisted in having Paris “lend” gold reserves to London, to address funding problems. The 2010 version of the same problem could read like this:

“There is a very interesting document from this period, a letter from M. Trichet, who was then the European Central Bank’s President, to Mr. Bernanke, who was the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; it must be of 2011. M. Trichet said, “We know that you are entitled to ask dollars for your dollars, but in the frame of the close friendship between the European Union and the United States we ask you, so as to avoid trouble for the European Union, not to do that, and receive Euros instead.” And we were, I must say, weak enough to comply with this request and not ask for dollars. The fact that I had such important U.S. dollar deposits in Frankfurt shows that we did not use this right to ask for U.S. dollars. The adjustment, which would hardly have been felt if carried out on a day-to-day basis, was not made, and we had the fantastic boom of 2009 and 2010. This explains the depth of the collapse and of the depression, because the adjustment was so long delayed.”

Martin Sibileau

Please, click here to read this article in pdf format: march-1-2010

Over the weekend, we came across an article from U.S. Congressman and former Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, with whom we sympathize (refer: www.ronpaul.com ). The article was titled “Are U.S. taxpayers bailing out Greece?” and published on February 16th (refer: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-02-16/ron-paul-are-us-taxpayers-bailing-out-greece/ ).
Briefly, Mr. Paul wrote: “…Is it possible that our Federal Reserve has had some hand in bailing out Greece? The fact is, we don’t know(…)Unless laws are changed to allow a complete and meaningful audit of the Federal Reserve, including its agreements with foreign central banks, we might never know if this is occurring or not…”
Mr. Paul left us thinking, and after careful consideration, we realized that the implication of this exercise may (or not) be in contradiction with what we wrote on Friday. Let us explain:

To begin with, we believe that indeed, there would be a cost to U.S. taxpayers, if Greece defaulted. We don’t think Greece will default, at least not in the near term, but there would be a cost nevertheless. The cost is not explicit and it would show its ugly face if a credit event was triggered under a sovereign (i.e. Greece’s) credit default swap.

Why?

Any US financial institution with a net long exposure to Greece’s sovereign credit default swaps would face an immediate funding problem. Therefore, the Fed would be pressed to rescue such institutions, while at the same time, it would have to provide currency swap lines to the European Central Bank, to avoid a collapse of the Eurodollar market.

The cost regarding the financial rescue would be on US taxpayers. This would be an unnecessary and most disappointing cost. After so much “quatsch” on regulation, how would the current US Administration justify having missed a flag as big as that of sovereign credit default swaps. There is currently a lot of quatsch about sovereign credit default swaps, but all superficial. The economic ignorance of politicians prevents them from understanding what these derivatives really imply. As we wrote earlier, under a system of fiat currency, allowing banks to sell insurance on sovereign debt is no different than allowing children to sell insurance on the financial risk of their parents. But politicians focus on the greedy side of those who trade these swaps, which is really idiotic, because these derivatives represent a huge boost to systemic risk, even if they were traded for the most morally justifiable reasons. If somebody bought credit insurance on the parents of the seller of that insurance, be it the most educated, hardworking or honest kid, he or she would still be dreadfully misled by the formal aspects of the contract, which lacks any solid content. The solution does not reside in prohibiting them, but in requiring that collateral on such trades, at least on non-Emerging markets credit default swaps, be posted in gold. (Note: Why do you think I believe that a commodity collateral would not be required on credit default swaps on emerging market countries?)

On the other hand, the cost needed to save the Eurodollar market would be global. The global feature of this cost is driven by the violent foreign exchange volatility the world would have to bear, where the notion of a global reserve currency would be clearly challenged. This brings us back to the point made last Friday, when we wrote that a sovereign credit event would be deflationary, and that liquidity preference, in particular a strong demand for USD, would challenge the value of gold.

We kept and keep thinking about this one. Given the hypothetical nature of this event, we can only speculate as to what conditions would be necessary for gold to rally. The first one that comes to mind is a catastrophic situation, where the Fed actually bails both the financial institutions and the Euro market but the market no longer trusts monetary authorities and every USD facilitated by currency swap lines is swiftly bought with Euros and immediately exchanged for gold.

If you think this twice, you will acknowledge it would not be the first time a flight to safety of this nature takes place. In fact, it would make sense. But again, this should occur under a total lack of monetary policy coordination and something else: The firm conviction that stimuli programs are useless. This would be a true capitulation. What is the probability for this scenario? Not too high for now, but not too low either, in our view.

Martin Sibileau

With yesterday’s fears of a rating’s downgrade on Greece’s sovereign debt and weak US jobs market data, the markets (except in Canada or Mexico) sold off. However, we could not make sense of the simultaneous rise in the price of gold.
 
We’ve seen this pattern before too, but it did not go too far, when it happened in 2008. Indeed, one could explain the behaviour by pointing at Mr. Bernanke’s comments yesterday, who made every effort before the Senate’s Banking Committee to be clear on the Fed’s intention to maintain a level of liquidity consistent with that of economic activity (weakness = low rate environment). Or maybe his comments on the possibility of reviewing MBS purchases, if required? But if that was the case, why would stocks not also rise, along with gold and oil? Why would the USD not weaken as well?
 
Clearly, the above factors cannot explain what happened yesterday. But if gold was bought as a way out of future currency debasements, then we have some comments to add here this morning.
 
If you have been reading “A View from the Trenches” long enough, you will remember that we turned neutral to bearish on gold (in USD) after the Dubai event, at the end of November 2009. Essentially, we believe the power of monetary policy coordination is a formidable challenge on gold’s prospects as a reserve currency. Therefore, if yesterday’s rally on gold and gold mining stocks was due to the increasingly likely fall of the Euro, as a consequence of the peripherals’ problems, we think gold bugs could later be disappointed.
 
Why?
 
In the 21st century, there are two global social classes: Politicians and taxpayers (This social stratification truly has global characteristics). If you think politicians will let you taxpayers get away from the inflation tax easily, think it twice. Let’s specifically consider the scenario where the Euro plunges. We think that if this happened, there would be an immediate increase in liquidity preference, expressed as a flight to the USD and the Treasuries markets. In that case, gold and stocks would be sold in favour of liquidity.
To those who disagree with this view, believing this chaotic situation would get off hands, we suggest that the Fed would be able to establish again, as it did in 2008, currency swap lines with other central banks, cushioning the impact of this move. This would be a deflationary event and no central bank would hesitate to provide extra liquidity. In summary, we fail to see a compelling story to be long of gold. And yet we are indeed worried, because the market proved us wrong yesterday and will prove us wrong today too, for gold is already at $1,112/oz.
 
For an historical perspective on this dynamic, let me quote below part of an interview M. Jacques Rueff gave to The Economist (Jacques Rueff: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Rueff ). The interview was published on June 1965, and titled “The Role and the Rule of Gold.” The entire interview was reprinted in Jacques Rueff’s book “The Monetary Sin of the West”, MacMillan Co., New York, 1971, Part III. Its online version can be found at (www.mises.org/books/monetarysin.pdf ):
 
 
The Economist: …one of the countries that saw the biggest constriction imposed by the gold standard was, of course, Britain, which held no foreign exchange in its reserves. And, as we have always recognized, Britain at this time suffered precisely because of the harsh and inflexible disciplines of the gold standard, which you now want to restore.
 
J.R.: Let me tell you that you touch a point on which I have quite a few personal recollections. In 1930 I was financial attaché in the French Embassy in London, and in that capacity I was responsible for the deposits of the French Treasury with British banks. They were the direct result of eight years of the gold-exchange standard, because we had kept the pounds sterling in London, as my colleagues in New York had kept in the American market the dollars that had been pouring into the French Treasury from 1927 onward. Then, in 1931, the failure of the Austrian Creditanstalt caused successive waves of repatriations; and it was this collapse of the gold-exchange standard that, without any possible doubt, transformed the depression of 1929 into the Great Depression of 1931.
 
The Economist: While you are on this historical episode, what would your comments be on the very widespread view that it was to a substantial extent French pressure on London at that time, through the withdrawal of sterling balances, that was in part responsible for the general collapse later on?
 
 J.R. Let me tell you that, unhappily for the world, the French pressure did not exist, or was so mild that it had no effect. There is a very interesting document from this period, a letter from Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was then Foreign Secretary in London, to M. Poincaré, who was Prime Minister and Finance Minister in France; it must be of 1928. Sir Austen said, “We know that you are entitled to ask gold for your sterling, but in the frame of the close friendship between Britain and France we ask you, so as to avoid trouble for the City of London, not to do that.” And we were, I must say, weak enough to comply with this request and not ask for gold. The fact that I had such important sterling deposits in London shows that we did not use this right to ask for gold. The adjustment, which would hardly have been felt if carried out on a day-to-day basis, was not made, and we had the fantastic boom of 1927, 1928, and 1929. This explains the depth of the collapse and of the depression, because the adjustment was so long delayed. We were too gentle in complying with official appeals not to convert our sterling balances into gold…
 
 
The analogy here consists in that France did the same we suspect the US would do in case the Euro plunged: Providing Europe with USD currency swaps is the same as having France in the late 1920′s not withdrawing their gold deposits from London. Think about it. I know it sounds counter intuitive at first sight, but ask yourselves what was backing the sterling pound then, and what would the Euro be exchanged for if it plunged? If the USDs are there for the Euro as gold was for the pound, we will be only delaying a painful adjustment. But politicians only care about the present.
 
Martin Sibileau