Separated at birth: Russian gold reserves and Switzerland's 5000 franc bill

I recently read (WSJ, 2/23/16, C2) that demand for the CHF 1000 note, currently Switzerland's largest denomination, has been increasing as Swiss central bank rates have turned negative. This raises the fear that local depositors will soon be charged for storing their money in banks. There are now CHF 45.2 bn (US$45.7 bn) in circulation, a 17% increase in the last twelve months.

Two gnome-like parliamentarians from Zug, near Zurich zeroed in on this and proposed that the SNB also Issue CHF 5000 notes, arguing that "an individual's ability to keep wealth stockpiled in cash, and out of the reach of banks, digital payment systems or the government, is a fundamental right." (WSJ's paraphrase)

Meanwhile back in the Kremlin, Bank of Russia President Elvira Nabuillina, a Tartar and worthy scion of the Golden Horde, whom Euromoney has named Central Banker of the Year in 2015, is buying all the gold she can get her hands on. (Well, almost all) In the fourth quarter, the Bank was reportedly the world's largest single buyer of gold, and in January alone it added another 700,000 ounces ($840 mn). Russia's concern is that by holding dollars in reserve it risks having them effectively cancelled by denial of access to the international transfer system, which is the only way these ones and zeroes in the their computer have any value. It is interesting that the Zug solons also expressed concern for digital payment systems in arguing for the CHF 5000 bill. (By the way, one of the ideas discussed last year by the US authorities was to close the payment system to Russia to force them to default on their external debts, which are mainly corporate, thus strewing chaos; international creditors did not like this idea, however.)

Money is a means of exchange and a store of value. In the dollar world, both of these functions are available at the pleasure, and only at the pleasure of the Fed and the US Treasury. That is why politics worry some and "unconventional policies" worry others.

Drug-induced optimism? Botox sales up. Consumer confidence down. It just doesn't make sense.

We note in the paper this morning that Allergan has reported good profits, thanks partly to higher sales of Botox (+10%) and Restasis (+18%). I guess the increase in Botox sales means the consumer is doing better; she has money to spend, and is ceasing to behave like the Madwoman of Chaillot, becoming more mindful of her appearance. Consequently, since it is hard to express emotion while under the influence of Botox, said consumer can neither cry nor laugh, pushing up Restasis dry-eye treatment sales.

What does this say about mass psychology following the Great Recession? We are clearly past denial, and maybe mostly through anger, but what about the other stages of grief? My bet is that ever more people are between depression and acceptance.

Should this trend continue, there will be fewer angry people to attend Trump and Sanders rallies as the folks start going about their business in a more normal way; GDP growth is likely to pick up.

At the same time, we learn this morning that consumer confidence has unexpectedly declined. Fed take note: More Botox is needed. (How about the Fed printing Botox certificates that are tradable and redeemable? A certain amount of economic activity would directly result; in addition, the Botox treatments would greatly increase confidence. It's time for the Fed to try something different, something that might work.)

Unfortunately, Allergan is already an expensive stock and its shareholders are smiling only slightly, which is probably the best they can do, under the circumstances.

Martin Feldstein among the faeries, reporting from a dreamworld.

Martin Feldstein says, “The US economy is in good shape.”

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard professor Feldstein said, “The American economy is in good shape, better than critics think and financial investors fear. Incomes are rising, unemployment is falling, and industrial production is up sharply.” (p. A13)

I am glad to hear this because it echoes President Obama’s State of the Union assertions that “America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” and anyone saying America is in decline “is peddling fiction.”

The market problem is a market problem, according to Feldstein. Fed policy has pushed equities to artificially high levels; even after the recent decline, stocks are still 35% above normal.

He thinks the data showing that household income has stagnated is deceptive because it measures cash income. “The CBO explains that once corporate and government transfers are added to market incomes, and federal taxes are subtracted, the real income after transfers and federal taxes is up 49% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the lowest income quintile (with average total incomes of $31,000 in 2010). Real income is up 40% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the middle three quintiles (with average total incomes of $60,000) in 2010.”

These adjustments are interesting. Until a few years ago, the BLS when reporting on the number of Americans below the poverty line did not take into account government benefits. Today both numbers are available and you can choose between them depending on what point you wish to make. I noticed a couple of years ago, and wrote about it, that the average teacher in the local public schools with a master’s degree and 5-10 years of experience had about same effective income as a family of four on assistance. If the salary were $65,000, then about $20,000 comes off the top for health insurance (here the teacher pays half) and pension contribution (11% of gross income). Then we must subtract state and federal income taxes and NEA dues. On assistance, this teacher and his family could get subsidized housing, free healthcare, food stamps, and cash payments. In effect, he is no better off working, if we go by the numbers.

So why does he want to work? There are a number of reasons. He probably does not want to move his family to subsidized housing where he hears reports of frequent drug busts, shootings, assaults, and other crimes. He also likes being in a work environment where he is active, has interesting and dynamic colleagues, as well as other psychological rewards.

This is the point that Feldstein seems to miss. People don’t feel good about themselves if they are forced to depend on government programs. A good job is not an even trade for monetarily equivalent benefits. If you tell people in the latter group, or those who fear going there, that the economy is in good shape, they won’t believe you.

Dollar dreadnaught dings dong

Yesterday’s WSJ, which I just got around to reading today, has an interesting article on the effects of the strong dollar on coffee production around the world, “Strong Dollar Skews Coffee Trade.” It leads with a touching story of Vietnamese farmer Y Kua Mlo storing his coffee crop in his bedroom rather than putting the crop on the market because the price in dong, the national currency of Vietnam which is the world’s second largest coffee producer, is depressed because the dong is tied to the dollar. The world’s largest coffee producer Brazil’s currency has, however, dropped, making its coffee cheaper. Meanwhile, production in Brazil is soaring because the real ($R) price is up. “Coffee prices have been painfully low, and none of us want to sell the beans now,” Mr. Mlo moaned. (The market price is 34,000 dong ($1.52/kilogram) but he is holding out for 40,000.) Mrs. Mlo says he should have switched to peppers, so there is probably a lot of tension in the coffee bean-stuffed bedroom.

Vietnam, like the other countries whose currencies are tied to the greenback (China, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Panama, etc. – the list grows ever shorter) are in increasing difficulties, as is the United States itself. I would expect that the market will bring the dollar down soon, particularly as the 10-year bond yield differential is diminishing. (Assuming of course the Fed does not tighten further.)

El-Erian fears doom, but hopes for the good enough

Mohammed El-Erian has just published a book, The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse. He says the world economy is on a road heading for a "T junction," to use a British phrase. We must soon choose between the two roads. One leads to total destruction (depression, social disorder) and the other to some sort of survival. He assigns a 50% likelihood to each outcome. To achieve the latter somewhat better outcome, far-sighted, enlightened and public-spirited actions are required from our leaders. (It is unclear how he gets a 50% likelihood that this will happen. It's rather like Samuel Johnson's definition of a second marriage, "the triumph of hope over experience.")

As for the central banks, we have reached the point where a continuation of extraordinary measures (ZIRP, QE) is counterproductive, and even destructive. He goes so far as to say that apart from the emergency measures during the crisis, the central bank monetary manipulation experiment has not worked.

Yesterday my wife listened to El-Erian's hour-long interview on Tom Ashbrook's show "On Point" in the morning. She insisted I hear the replay in the evening, but I resisted as I was reading a book. I did, however, subsequently download and listen to the podcast. It is well worth hearing. It is anything but the party line.

The link: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/02/16/economic-market-crash-prediction


Yours truly,
Lincoln

Central bankers among the wolves

Last week Janet Yellen talked to Congress and on Monday Mario Draghi spoke to the European parliament. I happened to watch some of each on TV.

Janet Yellen probably regards her recent testimony to Congress as a low point, at least so far. Like Rodney Dangerfield, she got no respect. (“I come from a stupid family. During the Civil War my great uncle fought for the West!” – NB: I think that was said by Dangerfield, not Yellen.) Gone are the halcyon days of the representatives’ and senators’ groveling and obsequious boot-licking of Greenspan and Bernanke. The image that came to my mind was the movie scene where the caveman, or, in this case, cave-chair finds herself alone at night surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves held at bay only by the sputtering flames of a dying torch. The wolves respect the flames but not the chair, and they know the flames are dying. I was half expecting a band of loyal governors to rush into to hearing room at the last minute to rescue her, but they didn’t.

Mario Draghi looked more impressive, speaking with assuredness, surrounded by well-groomed advisors in Italian suits, until the Q&A, when the camera turned and revealed that the large parliamentary room was almost empty. Draghi gave his usual “we’ll do what it takes” and even boasted that half of the Eurozone’s growth has been from ECB actions. (The other half was, according to him, from low oil prices, leaving out government, policy, individual initiative, invention, and hard work, all of which are of no account, at least in Mario’s mind.) I couldn’t help thinking that he keeps saying he’ll do “whatever,” but in reality he does rather less than his words suggest. No doubt there are some puppet strings leading to the restraining hand of Wolfgang Schäuble, just offstage.

For several years at least, people have been reassured by the assumption that the central banks have matters under control. Now that doubt has crept in, who or what will be the new repository of hope? So far, the political leaders are AWOL and have been a long time. Nature abhors a vacuum. This has the makings of a crisis.

What China yuans, China gets; my humble and beneficent exchange rate forecast

Mr. Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital Management has, according to the Wall Street Journal, a multibillion-dollar bet against the Chinese yuan (money), the renminbi. In an eleven-page letter to investors that was cited in the Journal, Bass reported that his fund had sold off the bulk of its other investments to concentrate on shorting Asian currencies. What caught my attention, and the attention of many other investors, was the following quote from Mr. Bass: “The view that China has years of reserves to burn through is misinformed. China’s back is completely up against the wall today. . .” Bass justified his view with the fact that China’s liquid reserves were “only” $2.2 trillion at the end of January compared to its total reserves of $3.23 trillion.

The use of the words “only $2.2 trillion” is interesting in light of the facts that the total reserves including gold of the UK are only $107 billion, of the US only $434 billion (almost all illiquid gold), of Germany only $193 billion, and so on. (This is from the latest World Bank data at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FI.RES.TOTL.CD .) China’s liquid reserves of “only” $2.2 trillion are huge in comparison. Of course, Bass can be excused for a bit of hyperbole since it reflects his investment position and thus may be of near term benefit to his investors.

Bass will probably make a lot of money on his short because his investment strategy is not at odds with the policy of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). Between the Asia crisis of the 1990s, when the renminbi was devalued, and 2005, China tied the renminbi to the US dollar, much to its benefit. Then, until 2005, it followed a policy of gradually increasing the value of its currency relative to the dollar. This policy has had bad consequences for China because the US dollar has been strengthening, dragging the renminbi up with it to a very overvalued position. The negative consequences were aggravated by the large devaluations of the currencies of China’s main trading partners other than the US, which has left China with an even greater overvaluation than the US.

So in December 2015 China announced it would no longer track only the dollar but rather a trade-weighted basket. China can be expected to adjust gradually its currency valuation again this basket to bring the renminbi back in line with other currencies.

The BIS has created trade-weighted indices of many currencies based on each country’s individual trade relationships. The graph of the US dollar, the renminbi, the euro (based on Germany’s trade), and the yen shows that the renminbi has risen considerably against all them since 2010. (About twice as much against its basket as the US dollar against its.) (This is not to say whether or not the renminbi is overvalued in some absolute sense, but only relative to where it was five years ago.)

Were it to regress to the mean, the renminbi would depreciate about 30% on a trade-weighted basis. So here is a crude forecast: Both the US dollar and the renminbi will likely depreciate on a trade-weighted basis, China by 30% and the US by 15%, so China will depreciate 15% in dollar terms. The renminbi/dollar is now 6.53 yuan/dollar; in this scenario our guess is that that rate will be about 7.50 at some point. This is a big move, but I am guessing that this is in the ballpark of what the PBOC is targeting. They will, of course, proceed by baby-steps, like the mincing gait of the women with bound feet in the old imperial court. But proceed they will. In the words of Lao Tzu, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”