Please, click here to read this article in pdf format: March 25 2012

During the past week, we think, we witnessed some interesting developments. In our previous letter, we had discussed what was the KreditAnstalt event of 1931. We saw a striking similarity with the current status quo because just like then, we now have sovereigns at the brink of default, whose creditors are other public institutions or countries, rather than private investors.
But there is more to it…

During the past week, we had Fed’s Chairman Ben Bernanke answering questions at the US Congress. It was there that Rep. Dan Burton (Indiana, 5th District) took Mr. Bernanke to task on the issue of the currency swaps the Fed has extended to the European Central Bank. On Thursday, we learned that the amount outstanding, which had reduced to $67BN, has remained there and increased a little bit. All this, in the face of a 7 ½ -month record low in US dollar funding costs for EU banks, given the 3-month cross currency swap basis reached 53bps below Euribor, on that same Thursday. The fact that the Fed currency swap lines are still in demand while the cost of US dollar funding keeps falling tells us that the EU financial system is segmented, with those who can access the market and those who cannot. But it also tells us that there is, paradoxically, an oversupply of US dollars, as we explain below.

R. Dan Burton then asked Mr. Bernanke how would the Fed recover the US dollars it loaned, should the Eurozone break. We made this point at “A View from the Trenches”, many, indeed many times before. You may see our latest letter on this issue at: http://sibileau.com/martin/2012/01/23/. Of course, Mr. Bernanke categorically played down the likelihood of such a scenario. He first lied to everyone saying that the debtor, the European Central Bank, does not finance governments. It was an insulting lie because not only does the ECB finance them indirectly via LTROs, but also explicitly and directly, through its Securities Market Programme, where more than EUR200BN are booked. Mr. Bernanke could not have and does not ignore this fact. Here is the link to the discussion: http://youtu.be/HzejoDbVXXs

On the other hand, we know that exactly this scenario, where the US had to bailout Europe, has already taken place in similar conditions. Back in 1931, when Austria defaulted leaving the gold standard, there was a generalized bank run (which the LTRO of last December prevented) and the United States had to establish a moratorium on the loans it had outstanding to Germany and to others. It was precisely this decision, that later pushed the United States to abandon the gold standard too, in 1932. Obviously, Americans understood that the amount of gold at the Fed, backing those claims now in moratorium, was not enough and they run against their banks as well. We found the video that shows President Hoover announcing the moratorium. It would have been so nice to have it handy to show to Mr. Bernanke before Congress: http://youtu.be/MFdTISc1KG0

Last week too, it was painful for those of us who still hold on to gold. Gold made interim lower lows at $1,628/oz on Thursday and bounced back to $1,665/oz on Friday afternoon. Is it still trading within range or is it consolidating to retake its bullish trend. We have our doubts, but the long term fundamentals support it. Let’s see…

One of the things that really caught our curiosity was to see the Euro appreciate since March 14th, with the simultaneous deterioration in sovereign credit risk. Since then, the sovereign spreads of Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Germany have been increasing. Should we not be looking at a weaker Euro in light of this? Why would we see the Euro flirting with a $1.33 level?

That should be the case, if the US dollar had been the main funding currency. But we think the game may have changed. Since the LTROs (liquidity lines) from the ECB are in place, and we’re talking about more than trillion Euros, it could well be that the Euro is now the main funding currency within the Eurozone. That would explain a lot of the things we saw.
Indeed, if sovereign debt placed as collateral with the European Central Bank widens, margin is called and banks need to sell first Euro-denominated assets or assets denominated in other currencies, to later buy Euros. This hypothesis would explain why the Euro appreciates as EU stocks fall, commodities fall, US stocks have a hard time appreciating and the cost of USD liquidity falls. In fact, it could also explain why we saw (last week) gold depreciate at the open of the European trading session and appreciate later in the day, as the North American markets open.

There are however unexpected, unintended and negative consequences here, as a result of this fundamental change, namely the implementation of collateralized liquidity lines by the European Central Bank. We drew a graph below to visualize this horrible circularity: As the sovereign risk of EU members deteriorates, margin is called by the ECB, assets need to be sold, Euros have to be bought, the Euro appreciates making the EU members less competitive globally (particularly the peripheral countries) and crowding the private sector out of the Euro funding market. With a more expensive Euro, Germany is less able to export to sustain the rest of the Union and growth prospects wane. At the same time, the private sector of the EU looks for cheaper funding in the US dollar zone, which will eventually force the Fed to not be able to exit its loose monetary stance. This is the scenario that R. Dan Burton was proposing to Mr. Bernanke. Again, if this logic is correct, that scenario is not a tail risk, but the base risk.

How do we escape this circularity? With the ECB embarking in plain, good old Quantitative Easing. The collateralization of liquidity lines forces the EU to work within a context similar to that of the gold standard, where liquidity has to be backed by a commodity! In fact, if on the margin the supply of liquidity will only grow from collateralization, the EU would be better off under the gold standard, because gold at least, does not entail any credit risk!!!!Lowering interest rates, weakening collateral rules or extending maturities will not solve this problem.

If the ECB does not embark in Quantitative Easing, the Fed will bear the burden, because the worse the private sector of the EU performs, the more dependent it will become of US dollar funding and the more coupled the United States will be to the EU. These reasons make us feel comfortable holding gold.

We run out of time here, and we wished we had had the opportunity to discuss the fragile situation in two relevant countries: India and Canada. We will in our next letter.

Martin Sibileau

Please, click here to read this article in pdf format: March 18 2012

We are back from Washington DC and realize that we could choose different titles for today’s letter. Let’s try a few…

Title No.1: “The market proved us wrong”

Indeed, we have been, and continue to be, long term gold bulls. We have been buying dips in gold and find ourselves having averaged down on our holdings, as gold did not find a floor in the low $1,700/oz, nor $1,695/oz or even $1,660/oz. Averaging down is the sure way to ruin and wisdom calls for trimming rather than increasing one’s exposure to a falling asset. And we trimmed only a bit and stopped buying, with the belief that it will prove a wrong decision, but with the unemotional duty to survive. As we write, we learn that there’s an article on the Financial Times telling us that central banks (not the Fed, of course) have been doing the same, only better than us: They really added!

We have no doubts that the plunge in gold on February 29^th was simple manipulation and it is only this reason that encourages us to hold on to what we have. With respect to stocks, we continue to remain neutral of them, not willing to buy but also, not willing to short them. From conversations with friends and readers, we noticed that we have not explained ourselves appropriately. Therefore, we want to briefly stop here to provide these short comments:

The popular view on inflation is that which sees it coming from a steady increase in the supply of money spilled over onto assets, lifting investments, increasing employment, wages and later the price of every consumption good. If the price of assets and the employment rate rise, it is understood that the original goal by the central banker, that of lifting the level of activity with monetary easing, is working and that soon, that easing will disappear, followed by an increase in interest rates.

The problem we have with this view is personal. Unfortunately, we lived through inflation and remember it differently. Inflation is a steal. It is a tax charged by the government. And they charge this tax because they run a deficit. No government would nor will ever target inflation under surplus or balanced fiscal conditions. Inflation is the distortion of relative prices, and it always starts with that of the cost of capital. It is a manipulation first of the cost of capital, then of commodities and followed by price controls: First on goods and later on salaries. It entails control on capital flows (which we are currently seeing everywhere in the world), currencies, and financial repression. Therefore, our view is different: Inflation does not bring full employment. That’s a myth. Inflation creates unemployment. Under inflation, production does not rise lifting prices. That’s another myth. Under inflation, production falls, creating shortages of goods, which is what further shifts the inflationary process to hyperinflation. If a country like the US manages to have the rest of the world finance that shortage of goods, that’s another story and it will last as long as the rest of the world wants it to last. But we should be clear on the underlying process. If you have any doubts, just drive around the former industrial areas in the outskirts of Buffalo, Detroit, Boston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, etc. and you will picture what we’re talking about here.

As we explained at the beginning of the year, the rally in stocks and in gold was expected. It was only three weeks ago that the world was injected with more than half a trillion Euros in 3-yr liquidity lines!!! But gold was manipulated and stocks were not. And we have gold at below its 200-day moving average and the capitalization of Apple Inc. at higher than half a trillion US dollars, without Steve Jobs as CEO. Take this as you wish. In the meantime, on Friday we saw a violent increase in US yields, followed by demand, that kept the 30-yr Treasury yield below 3.5%, which is what brings us to the next possible title, for today’s letter…

Title No. 2: “Financial repression, Stage 1”

Perhaps the most clear exposition of financial repression occurred this week, when President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron openly threatened to manipulate crude reserves to lower the price of oil. The sense of embarrassment is gone. The leaders of two world powers meet and tell us in our faces that they contemplate manipulating the reserves of a commodity? What is going on? We, at “A View from the Trenches” take signals of repression like this one seriously.  It was only a few years ago that governments started running after people’s assets in other jurisdictions. They followed with open repression in the foreign exchange markets (Switzerland pegging the Franc, Brazil controlling capital flows). They kept on directing the lending activities of banks. They manipulate the reserves in gold. They wiped out investors in sovereign debt and this is a trend that will not weaken but strengthen. Perhaps our readers don’t, but we do see union strikes more often these days vs. in past years. How can any entrepreneur in these conditions feel encouraged to invest in increasing the productivity of his/her business? They cannot and all they are doing and will be doing is maintain what they have, refinance their liabilities longer term for cheaper rates and use every excess cash they count on to increase their dividends, as a way to cash out in a world where the price of equity, the price of risk, is anything but clear. We remember those times in Argentina when suddenly, bankrupt companies were owned by rich businessmen. One thing is to invest in dividend producing companies, with dividends driven by stable and healthy cash flows. Another thing is to invest under the illusion that those exist, when in fact the dividends are the only outlet entrepreneurs have to cash out with bank debt. We think we are witnessing the latter case but, as followers of Von Hayek, we can understand the confusion, because the price system is broken and the signals sent by prices are misleading. We need to quote the great Friederich A. Von Hayek here, on the price system:

“…The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use (though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it) after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Through it not only a division of labor but also a coordinated utilization of resources based upon an equally divided knowledge has become possible. Its misfortune is the double one that it is not the product of human design and that the people guided by it usually do not know why they are made to do what they do…(…)… I am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design, and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim, this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind…” F.A. Von Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, American Economic Review. XXXV, No. 4., September 1945

The actions of central banks have totally annihilated the price system, in relation to both the inter-temporal allocation of resources and the capitalization structure of economic systems. This brings us to our last title…

Title No. 3: “Remember the KreditAnstalt”

Since the debt swap of Greece’s sovereign debt, in terms of the capitalization structure of this sovereign, we understand that more than two thirds of it is in the hands of the public sector (European Central Bank, IMF, other governments) and highly collateralized. This is a point we have been thinking during last week because it painfully reminds us of the KreditAnstalt crisis of 1931. We highly recommend readers to do their own research on this topic and to reach their own conclusions. On our part, we are interested in one angle of it.

The KreditAnstalt of 1931 had been created in October of 1929, as the merger between the bankrupt Bodenkreditanstalt and the Öesterreichischekreditanstalt. However, the distressed assets of the Bodenkreditanstalt’s were too distressed to deal with. Given the Austrian regulations on capital requirements, when on May 11^th, 1931 the KreditAnstalt disclosed a 140MM Schilling loss, it immediately suffered a run on deposits. The Österreichische Nationalbank intervened, loaning 152.5MM Schillings. The Bank of International Settlements loaned an additional 100MM Schillings three days later. But by June, more funds were needed and this time….this time the Bank of International Settlements, under a request from the French, would only provide them if the Austrian government aborted a customs union with Germany, which was underway. The Austrian government did not accept the political condition and instead only received a third of the funds needed, from the Bank of England, on June 16th.

In the meantime, the Austrian government had been forced to guarantee the bank’s foreign deposits and imposed exchange controls to sustain the convertibility of the Schilling to gold. But the violence of the capital outflows was so strong that Austrialeft the gold standard on June 17^th. Unlike Greece, Austrians in 1931 did not have the 3-yr liquidity lines from Mario Draghi at the European Central Bank. These events triggered a wave of bank defaults in Eastern Europe and Germany. Gold eventually also was withdrawn from London. In July, the Federal Reserve Banks and the Bank of France saved the Bank of England with currency swaps of US$650 million and £eq.25 million, respectively. But this was not enough and Great Britain had to leave the gold standard on September 21^st. The countries that held sterling pounds as foreign reserves suffered heavy losses.

Fiat currencies were no longer to be trusted and the run on deposits was now taking place in the United States. Think of this: As Europe owed the US payment in specie and Europe had gone off the gold standard…who was the Fed going to recover the loaned money (approx. the equivalent of 465 metric tonnes of gold) back from??? We have written about this before too, in relation to the swaps extended by the Fed to the European Central Bank. If the Eurozone breaks up, who is the Fed going to recover the money from? They will not. But unlike back in 1931, the US dollar is not backed by gold and depositors are not going to run for their funds to exchange them into gold. However the Fed will need to undoubtedly print more US dollars and the devaluation, eventually, will happen anyway. The year 1931 was the year of bank failures in America. In 1932, after a bank holiday that lasted a week, the US government confiscated gold from its citizens.

The question you may have in mind now is what similarity do we see with the current situation? Well, this whole series of events was triggered because France, a public sector creditor, introduced a political condition to Austria, in exchange for a bailout of the KreditAnstalt. Today, like in 1931, in the Eurozone, the public sector is increasingly the creditor of the public sector. In 1931,England andFrance were creditors of Austria and demanded conditions that no private investor would have demanded.

Private investors live and die by their profits and losses. Politicians live and die by the votes they get. Private investors worry about the sustainability and capital structure of the borrower, the collateralization and the funding profile of their credits. Politicians worry about the sustainability of their power. It’s a fact and we must learn to live with it.

In 2012, Greece and increasingly other peripheral EU countries owe to other governments, the IMF and the European Central Bank. Private investors have been wiped out and will not return any moment soon. We fear that just like in 1931, when the next bailout is due either for Greece again or Portugal or Spain, political conditions will be demanded that no private investor in his/her right mind would ever have demanded. Think of it…What in the world had the customs union between Austria and Germany in 1931 had to do with the capitalization ratio of the KreditAnstalt??? Nothing! Yet, millions and millions of people worldwide were condemned to misery in only a matter of days as their savings evaporated! Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the world of fiat currencies! You have been warned! If months from now you read in the papers that the EU Council irresponsibly demands strange things from a peripheral country in need of a bailout, remember the KreditAnstalt. Remember 1931…

Please, understand that this is not a tail risk. The tail risk is precisely the opposite. The real tail risk here is that when the next bailout comes due, politicians think like private investors and give priority to economic rather than political considerations. That’s the tail risk! If such a crisis occurred, the media will speak of increased correlations and tell you that everything is actually fine on this side of the Atlantic. But if you read us, you will know that all that led to such a situation was perfectly foreseeable and nothing is really fine on this side of the Atlantic either. You will have remembered 1931…

Martin Sibileau

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