How To Survive Today"s Bubbly Market

Authored by James Rickards via Bonner & Partners,

To paraphrase one of the great gems of Wall Street wisdom, “Nothing infuriates a man more than the sight of other people making money.”

That’s a pretty good description of what happens during the late stage of a stock market bubble. The bubble participants are making money (at least on a mark-to-market basis) every day.

Meanwhile, the more patient, prudent investor is stuck on the sidelines – allocated to cash or low-risk investments while watching everyone else have fun. This is especially true today when the bubble is not confined to the stock market but includes exotic sideshows like cryptocurrencies and Chinese real estate.

It gets even worse when investors are taunted by headlines like the one in a recent article, “Investors Can Either Buy Bubbles or Be Left Far Behind.” The article is a case study in the “Bubblicious Portfolio.” Infuriating indeed. Actually, it should not be.

On a risk-adjusted basis, the prudent investor is not missing much.

When markets go up 10%, 20%, or more in short periods, market participants think of their gains as money in the bank. Yet, that’s not true unless you sell and cash out of the market. Few do this because they’re afraid to “miss out” on continued gains.

The problem comes when the bubble bursts and losses of 30%, 40%, or more pile up quickly. Investors tell themselves they’ll be smart enough to get out in time, but that’s not true, either.

Typically, investors don’t believe the tape. They “buy the dips,” (which keep dipping lower), then they refuse to sell until they “get back to even,” which can take ten years. These are predictable behaviors of real investors caught up in real bubbles.

It’s better just to diversify, build up a cash reserve, have some gold for catastrophe insurance, and then wait out the bubble crowd. When the crash comes, which it always does, you’ll be well positioned to shop for high-quality bargains amid the rubble. Then you’ll participate in the next long upswing without today’s risks of a sudden meltdown.

OK, so I just argued that the stock market (and other markets) are in bubbles. But where’s the actual proof of this?

Actually, it’s everywhere.

The Shiller Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) ratio – a good indicator of how expensive stocks are – is at levels only seen at the 1929 crash that started the Great Depression and the 2000 dot-com bubble. Likewise, the market capitalization-to-GDP ratio is above the level of the 2008 panic and comparable to the 1929 crash.

The list goes on, including historically low volatility and unprecedented complacency on the part of investors.

For almost a year, one of the most profitable trading strategies has been to sell volatility. That’s about to change...

Since the election of Donald Trump, stocks have been a one-way bet. They almost always go up, and have hit record highs day after day. The strategy of selling volatility has been so profitable that promoters tout it to investors as a source of “steady, low-risk income.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, sellers of volatility have made steady profits the past year. But the strategy is extremely risky and you could lose all of your profits in a single bad day.

Think of this strategy as betting your life savings on red at a roulette table. If the wheel comes up red, you double your money. But if you keep playing, eventually, the wheel will come up black and you’ll lose everything.

That’s what it’s like to sell volatility. It feels good for a while, but eventually, a black swan appears like the black number on the roulette wheel, and the sellers get wiped out. I focus on the shocks and unexpected events that others don’t see.

In short, we have been on a volatility holiday. Volatility is historically low and has remained so for an unusually long period of time. The sellers of volatility have been collecting “steady income,” yet this is really just a winning streak at the volatility casino.

I expect the wheel of fortune to turn and luck to run out for the sellers.

But it’s time to add another warning sign to the list. Certain high-yield (or “junk bond”) indices have fallen below their 200-day moving averages. This can be indicative of a stock market correction.

Junk bonds are riskier than equity. When they get in trouble, it’s a sign that the corporate issuers are having trouble meeting their obligations. That, in turn, is indicative of reduced revenues or profits, tight financial conditions, and lower earnings.

Panics in October 1987 and December 1994 were preceded by distress in bonds about six months earlier. While there is no deterministic relationship, bonds are a good leading indicator of stocks because they are higher in the capital table and feel distress sooner. The October 1987 one-day 22% decline in stocks and the December 1994 Tequila Crisis in Mexican debt were ugly for investors. The bond market gave a six-month early warning both times.

It may be doing so again.

But what the Fed? Is it setting markets up for a fall?

It’s true that the Fed has been raising interest rates since 2015 and had engaged in tapering for two years before that. Yet these actions hardly constitute tight money. The tightness or ease of monetary policy needs to be judged relative to financial and economic conditions.

You can have “easy money” at a 10% interest rate if inflation is running at 15% (something like the conditions of the late 1970s). In that world, the real interest rate is negative 5%, (10% – 15% = -5%).

In effect, the bank pays you to borrow. That’s easy money.

By most models, including the famous Taylor Rule, rates in the U.S. today should be about 2.5% instead of 1%. We have easy money today and have had it since 2006. This comes on top of the “too low for too long” policy of Alan Greenspan from 2002–2004, which led directly to the housing bubble and collapse in 2007.

The U.S. really has not had a hard money period since the mid-1990s. That’s true of most of the developed economies also.

What’s going to happen when central banks start to normalize interest rates and balance sheets and return to a true tight money policy in preparation for the next recession?

We’re about to find out.

Central banks all over the world including the Fed, ECB, and the People’s Bank of China are in the early stages of ending their decade-long (or longer) easy money policies. This tightening trend has little to do with inflation (there isn’t any) and more to do with deflating asset bubbles and getting ready for a new downturn.

But, in following this policy, central bankers may actually pop the bubbles and cause the downturn they are getting ready to cure. This is one more reason, in addition to those described above, why the stock market bubble is about to implode.

It’s important to realize that market crashes often happen not when everyone is worried about them, but when no one is worried about them.

Complacency and overconfidence are good leading indicators of an overvalued market set for a correction or worse.

"Can"t Rule Out $100,000" - Taleb Warns Futures Traders "No Way To "Properly" Short Bitcoin Bubble"

Following Mike Novogratz"s earlier comments about the launch of Bitcoin futures,

“The market trades like it wants to go up, not down...

 

We are in a speculative mania and my sense is we are still fairly early.”

Infamous "Black Swan" theorist and tail-risk-hedger, Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a warning for the "no brainer" traders hoping to use Bitcoin futures to bet against the "bubble"...

In his tweet, Taleb said,

“No, there is NO way to properly short the bitcoin “bubble”. Any strategy that doesn’t entail options is nonergodic (subjected to blow up). Just as one couldn’t rule out 5K, then 10K, one can’t rule out 100K.”

Taleb"s view was reinforced by Cybersecurity pioneer John McAfee in a tweet earlier saying:

“Those of you in the old school who believe this is a bubble simply have not understood the new mathematics of the blockchain, or you did not care enough to try.

 

Bubbles are mathematically impossible in this new paradigm. So are corrections and all else.”

For now prices are holding gains...

You"re Just Not Prepared For What"s Coming

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

I hate to break it to you, but chances are you"re just not prepared for what’s coming. Not even close. 

Don"t take it personally. I"m simply playing the odds.

After spending more than a decade warning people all over the world about the futility of pursuing infinite exponential economic growth on a finite planet, I can tell you this: very few are even aware of the nature of our predicament.

An even smaller subset is either physically or financially ready for the sort of future barreling down on us. Even fewer are mentally prepared for it. 

And make no mistake: it"s the mental and emotional preparation that matters the most. If you can"t cope with adversity and uncertainty, you"re going to be toast in the coming years.

Those of us intending to persevere need to start by looking unflinchingly at the data, and then allowing time to let it sink in.  Change is coming – which isn"t a problem in and of itself. But it"s pace is likely to be. Rapid change is difficult for humans to process. 

Those frightened by today"s over-inflated asset prices fear how quickly the current bubbles throughout our financial markets will deflate/implode. Who knows when they"ll pop?  What will the eventual trigger(s) be? All we know for sure is that every bubble in history inevitably found its pin.

These bubbles – blown by central bankers serially addicted to creating them (and then riding to the rescue to fix them) – are the largest in all of history. That means they"re going to be the most destructive in history when they finally let go.

Millions of households will lose trillions of dollars in net worth. Jobs will evaporate, causing the tens of millions of families living paycheck to paycheck serious harm.

These are the kind of painful consequences central bank follies result in. They"re particularly regrettable because they could have been completely avoided if only we’d taken our medicine during the last crisis back in 2008.  But we didn"t. We let the Federal Reserve --the instiution largely responsible for creating the Great Financial Crisis -- conspire with its brethern central banks to "paper over" our problems.

So now we are at the apex of the most incredible nest of financial bubbles in all of human history.

One of my favorite charts is below, which shows that even the smartest minds among us (Sir Isaac Newton, in this case) can succumb to the mania of a bubble:

It"s enormously difficult to resist the social pressure to become involved.

But all bubbles burst -- painfully of course. That’s their very nature.

Mathematically, it"s impossible for half or more of a bubble"s participants to close out their positions for a gain. But in reality, it"s even worse. Being generous, maybe 10% manage to get out in time.

That means the remaining 90% don’t. For these bagholders, the losses will range from "painful" to "financially fatal".

Which brings us to the conclusion that a similar proportion of people will be emotionally unprepared for the bursting of these bubbles.  Again, playing the odds, I"m talking about you.    

How Exponentials Work Against You

Bubbles are destructive in the same manner as ocean waves. Their force is not linear, but exponential. 

That means that a wave"s energy increases as the square of its height. A 4-foot wave has 16 times the force of a 1-foot wave; something any surfer knows from experience.  A 1-foot wave will nudge you.  A 4-foot wave will smash you, filling your bathing suit and various body orifices with sand and shells.  A 10-foot wave has 100 times more destructive power. It can kill you if it manages to pin you against something solid. 

A small, localized bubble -- such as one only affecting tulip investors in Holland, or a relatively small number of speculators caught up in buying swampland in Florida -- will have a small impact.  Consider those 1-foot waves.

A larger bubble inflating an entire nation’s real estate market will be far more destructive. Like the US in 2007. Or like Australia and Canada today.  Those bubbles were (or will be when they burst) 4-foot waves. 

The current nest of global bubbles in nearly every financial asset (stocks, bonds, real estate, fine art, collectibles, etc) is entirely without precedent. How big are these in wave terms? Are they a series of 8-foot waves? Or more like 12-footers? 

At this magnitude level, it doesn"t really matter. They"re going to be very, very destructive when they break.

Our focus now needs to be figuring out how to avoid getting pinned to the coral reef below when they do.

Understanding "Real" Wealth

In order to fully understand this story, we have to start right at the beginning and ask “What is wealth?”

Most would answer this by saying “money”, and then maybe add “stocks and bonds”. But those aren"t actually wealth. 

All financial assets are just claims on real wealth, not actually wealth itself.  A pile of money has use and utility because you can buy stuff with it.  But real wealth is the "stuff" -- food, clothes, land, oil, and so forth.  If you couldn"t buy anything with your money/stocks/bonds, their worth would revert to the value of the paper they"re printed on (if you"re lucky enough to hold an actual certificate). It’s that simple. 

Which means that keeping a tight relationship between "real wealth" and the claims on it should be job #1 of any central bank. But not the Fed, apparently. It"s has increased the number of claims by a mind-boggling amount over the past several years. Same with the BoJ, the ECB, and the other major central banks around the world. They"ve embarked on a very different course, one that has disrupted the long-standing relationship between the markers of wealth and real wealth itself. 

They are aided and abetted by both the media and our educational institutions, which reinforce the idea that the claims on wealth are the same as real wealth itself.  It’s a handy system, of course, as long as everyone believes it. It has proved a great system for keeping the poor people poor and the rich people rich.

But trouble begins when the system gets seriously out of whack. People begin to question why their money has any value at all if the central banks can just print up as much as they want. Any time they want. And hand it out for free in unlimited quantities to the banks. Who have their own mechanism (i.e., fractional reserve banking) for creating even more money out of thin air.

Pretty slick, right?  Convince everyone that something you literally make in unlimited quantities out of thin air has value. So much so that, if you lack it, you end up living under a bridge, starving. 

Let"s express this visually.

“GDP” is a measure of the amount of goods and services available and financial asset prices represent the claims (it"s not a very accurate measure of real wealth, but it"s the best one we’ve got, so we’ll use it). Look at how divergent asset prices get from GDP as bubbles develop: 

(Source)

What we see in the above chart is that the claims on the economy should, quite intuitively, track the economy itself.  Bubbles occurred whenever the claims on the economy, the so-called financial assets (stocks, bonds and derivatives), get too far ahead of the economy itself.

This is a very important point. The claims on the economy are just that: claims.  They are not the economy itself!

Yes the Dot-Com crash hurt.  But that was the equivalent of a 1-foot wave.  Yes, the housing bubble hurt, and that was a 2-foot wave.  The current bubble is vastly larger than the prior two, and is the 4-foot wave in our analogy -- if we’re lucky.  It might turn out to be a 10-footer.

The mystery to me is how people have forgotten the lessons of prior bubbles so rapidly.  How they cannot see the current bubbles even as the data is right there, and so easy to come by.  I suppose the mania of a bubble, the "high" of easy returns, just makes people blind to reality.

It used to take a generation or longer to forget the painful lessons of a bubble. The victims had to age and die off before a future generation could repeat the mistakes anew. 

But now, we have the same generation repeating the same mistakes three times in less than 20 years. Go figure.

In this story, wishful thinking and self-delusion have harmful consequences. It"s no different than taking up a lifelong habit of chain-smoking as a young teen.  Sure, you may be one of the few who lives a long full life in spite of the risks, but the odds are definitely not in your favor.

The inevitable destruction caused by the current froth of bubbles is going to hurt a lot of people, institutions, pensions, industries and countries.  Nobody will be spared when these burst.  The only question left to be answered is: Who’s going to eat the losses?

This is not a future question for a future time; it"s one that"s being answered daily already.  Pensioners are already taking cuts.  Puerto Rico will not be fully rebuilt.  Shale wells drilled when oil was $100/barrel, but being drained empty at $50/barrel, represent capital already hopelessly betrayed. Young graduates with $100,000 of student debt face lost decades of capital building. The losers are already emerging.

And there’s many more to follow.  This story is much closer to the beginning than the end.

The bubbles have yet to burst. We’re just seeing the water at the shore’s edge beginning to retreat, wondering how large the wave will be when it arrives. Hoping that it’s not a monster tsunami.

The End Is Nigh

History"s largest bubbles have had the exact same root cause: an expansion of credit that causes leverage to go up faster than the income available to service it.

Simply put: bubbles exist when asset price inflation rises beyond what incomes can sustain. They are everywhere and always a credit-fueled phenomenon.

(Source @hussmanjp )

Look at the ridiculous trajectory of the S&P 500, especially since Trump got elected. I don’t know about you, but pretty much everything that has happened in the US over the past year has been either a diplomatic clown show or a financial cruelty to the average citizen. And yet prices have risen at their highest pace in two decades?

My view is that the Trump election was a totally unexpected black swan shock for the global central banking cartel, and it freaked out.  With the Dow down -1,000 points in the late night hours following Trump"s surprise win, the central banks dumped gobs and oodles of money into the equity markets to prevent carnage.

All that money calmed investors and sent prices roaring higher over the following months. The resulting 80-degree rocket launch will hurt a lot when it comes back to earth. Good going central banks!

This is all happening when we’re as close as ever to a military (if not nuclear) confrontation with North Korea, Russia is busy beefing up its war machine, Saudi Arabia has pivoted away from the US towards China and Russia, and most of our European allies are inching away from us.

Meanwhile, the FCC is about to rule against the vast majority of the public and allow US corporations to turn the internet into a pay-for-play toll road -- completely undermining the core principle of the most transformative and useful invention of the millennium. By eliminating net neutrality the FCC has ruled "against" you, and "for" the continued usurious profits of the cable companies. 

Worse, heath care premiums continue to increase by double-digits each year. They"re going up by a horrifying 45% in Florida and 57% in Georgia, to name just two unfortunate states out of many.

And to really rub salt in the wounds of the nation, the DC swamp is busy passing a tax change that will further drive an enormous gap between the 0.1% and everybody else by lowering taxes on corporate profits (already the lowest in the world if you measure both tax on profits and value-added taxes). 

How to pay for the massive cost of this deficit-exploding bill?  Easy, just eliminate deductions for average people (such as the state and local tax deductions) and begin taxing the waived tuition of graduate students. That’s right, the government helped to massively bloat tuition fees via massive lending to students and then wants to squeeze the poorest and hardest-working among them.

I wish I were kidding here. But like a cruel joke re-told at the wrong moment, the GOP is busy destroying the meager and precarious financial situation of our citizens just so it can toss a few more dollars into the already-bloated wallets of the richest people in the country. 

The long rise of the ultra-wealthy is not some mystery.  It arose as a predictable consequence of the financialization of, well…everything that began in the 1980’s:

The above chart speaks to a deeply unfair system that punishes hard working people in order to give more to those who merely shuffle financial instruments around or own financial assets.

This is the system that the Fed is working so hard to preserve. This is the system that Washington DC is working so hard to sustain. 

It’s flat out unfair and punitive.  It both punishes and rewards the wrong folks, respectively.  Debtors are provided relief while savers are punished.  The young are saddled with debts and face impossible costs of living mainly to preserve the illusion of wealth for a little longer for the generation in front of them.

For so many reasons, folks, none of this is sustainable. If the system doesn"t crash first under the weight of its excessive debts or the puncturing of its many asset price bubbles, the brewing class and generational wars will boil over if the status quo trajectory continues for much longer.

In Part 2: When The Bubbles Burst... we detail what to expect as the unraveling starts. When these bubbles burst, as they inevitably must, the aftermath is going to be especially ugly.

Understand the likely path the carnage is going to take and position yourself wisely ahead of the crisis -- so that you and those you care about can weather the turmoil as safely as possible.

Remember: the role of bubble markets is to injure as many people as badly as possible when they burst. Don"t be one of the victims.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

 

China Hits A Brick Wall: For First Time Ever, Record Chinese Credit Creation Fails To Stimulate Economy

Submitted by Gordon Johnson of Axiom Capital

We believe that exhibit 1 says a lot: it shows that despite a record level of new credit issued by China’s PBoC YTD through Oct. 2017 (which stands in stark contrast to government authorities continued statements that China is de-levering), China’s economic backdrop is currently experiencing:

• (a) monthly construction new start (commercial + residential + office) growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 2),


• (b) monthly fixed asset investment growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 9),


• (c) monthly cement output slowing Y/Y (Ex. 5),


• (d) monthly electricity production slowing Y/Y (Ex. 6),


• (e) monthly M2 money supply growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 7),


• (f) monthly household loan growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 8),


• (g) monthly private fixed asset investment growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 10), and


• (h) monthly home price growth slowing Y/Y (Ex. 12) – in fact, select data points have turned negative Y/Y.

Stated differently, while the lion’s share of our client base continues to tell us, with respect to our bearish views on China… “President Xi Jinping will simply stimulate more if/when things get bad”, we would highlight, again as detailed in Ex. 1 below, China stimulated at a record pace in 2017, yet it did not resonate in improved economic activity (in fact, the exact opposite appears to be unfolding – i.e., economic growth is slowing across a number of data points).

Furthermore, underpinning our view that China’s debt stimulus was targeted specifically at the months preceding the 19^th Party Congress in Oct. 2017 (i.e., when President Xi Jinping consolidated power to become the strongest Chinese leader since Mao Zedong), implying we may see a phase of debt fatigue, we note that in the first 10 months of 2016, incremental credit issued in China on a month-over-month (“M/M”) basis was negative three times (i.e., May, July, and Oct.), and averaged $189 billion on a monthly basis; yet, in the first 10 months of 2017, incremental credit issued on a M/M basis was positive in each month outside of Oct., and averaged $429 billion on a monthly basis (in Oct. 2017, the month the 19^th Party Congress concluded, new credit issued fell by $11.9 billion M/M).

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? The broader point is… when you issue an unprecedented amount of credit targeted at a growing number of negative ROI projects multiple decades, at some point the law of diminishing marginal returns sets in (since 1/1/09, China’s credit has grown by CNY153.9 trillion while GDP has grown by a much more modest CNY 48.5 trillion, or a multiple of 3.17x, meaning a lot of bad investments have stacked up over the years) – keep in mind that China’s $3.6 trillion in credit issued in 2017 YTD through Oct. is more than the entire developed world combined. Put in the simplest of terms, at some point the incremental dollar in new credit created actually does more harm than good.

Ex. 1: China New Credit Created YTD Through Oct.

Note: Credit created = TSF + Local Gov"t Debt.
Source: PBoC; NBS; ChinaBond.

SO WHERE FROM HERE? When considering China hit the afterburners on new credit issuance in 2017, yet the impact seems to be quickly fading, it would appear we may have reached the point of “no return” (while Consensus, at this point, seems completely oblivious to this possibility, the recent sell-off across the Chinese stock markets suggest investors on-the-ground in China may be catching on).

CONCLUSION: In the face of China’s TTM 3Q17 credit as a percentage of GDP coming in at 250%, to “keep the party going”, Xi Jinping would have to force new credit issuance far in excess of $4.0 trillion in 2018 (which could trigger a number of ratings downgrades, as well as a reassessment by the IMF of China’s “market economy” status).

Moreover, given what we’ve seen this year – i.e., 101.7% Y/Y new credit issuance growth YTD through Oct. 2017 – it seems the level of credit necessary to stimulate growth in China could prove elusive at this point (we don’t recall any economist’s forecasts exiting 2016 pointing to China’s new credit issuance more than doubling Y/Y in 2017, yet that’s exactly what’s happened – had this been our base case, we would have expected all economic indicators in China to be moving substantially higher at this point in the cycle). Thus, to the thesis that rests on a view that: “Xi will just stimulate more”, we would argue that the extent of the stimulus necessary may be so high at this point that President Xi Jinping may have lost sight of how much debt he needs to “get things going again”. Should this prove to be the case, China’s economy will continue slowing, putting pressure on bulk commodity prices, and, ultimately, industrial/steel stocks (CAT, URI, FMG, RIO, X, CLF, GATX, and TRN, all of which we have SELL ratings on).

HOW’S THE DATA LOOK IN THE FACE OF CHINA’S RECORD 2017 CREDIT “BINGE”? So how do the data points look? Well, here’s a few (we feel the charts say it all)…

Ex. 2: Monthly Construction Starts (Residential + Commercial + Office)

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 3: GDP Growth Internals - China (FAI, Industrial Production, & Retail Sales)

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 4: China Monthly Steel Production by Year

Source: World Steel Association (WSA), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 5: China Cement Output

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 6: Y/Y Growth in Electricity Production by Month

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 7: China M2 Money Growth, Y/Y% - Multi Decade Low (bearish)

Source: Peoples" Bank of China (PBOC), Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 8: 3MMA Household Loan Growth, Y/Y%

Source: Axiom Capital Research, Bloomberg, National Bureau of Statistics.

Ex. 9: Monthly Total Fixed Asset Investment and Y/Y Growth

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 10: Monthly Private Fixed Asset Investment and Y/Y Growth

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 11: Private Investment in Industrial Sector and Y/Y Growth

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Axiom Capital Research.

Ex. 12: Average Price Change of New Residential Buildings, by Tiered-Cities, %Y/Y

Source: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Axiom Capital Research.

In short, we feel China could be the “black swan” that ruins the stock market rally party for many in the industrials space. Caveat emptor.

Forget About Catalonia And Brexit, The Next European Black Swan Could Be Transylvania

Via ValueWalk.com,

Over the past 100 years, the borders in Central and Eastern Europe have been redrawn time and time again, often leaving groups of people separated from their home country by new borders. Although land often changed hands relatively peacefully, suddenly finding one-selves as an ethnic minority in a new country was bound to lead to tension and resentment.

While these resentments may reveal real disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities in Central Europe, politicians, especially populist figures, have seized on the outsider narratives inherent in the diaspora experience.

As the April 2018 election approaches in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been reaching out to the Hungarian minority in Romania, drawing criticism from Romanian leaders, while his supporters insist he is trying to lend his support Hungarians everywhere.

Rooted in History

Tensions between Romania and Hungary can be traced back to World War I and the Treaty of Trianon.

Although the Treaty of Trianon ended hostilities between the Allied Powers and the Kingdom of Hungary, the peace came at a great price to the Austro-Hungarian successor state. Hungary lost 2/3rd of its population and territory, leaving the former imperial hub landlocked in the heart of Central Europe. Most of its territory was ceded to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, as well as Austria, Italy, and Poland. Romania was granted the entire region of Transylvania, where an estimated 1.3 million ethnic Hungarians reside, making Hungarians Romania’s largest minority.

The loss of such a large chunk of territory and population would certainly leave its mark on national memory. Recently in Hungary, politicians have been revitalizing this narrative.

By derivative work: CoolKoon (talk)
Hungary1910-1920.png: The original uploader was Fz22 at English Wikipedia
(Original text: fz22 (talk)) - Hungary1910-1920.png, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Speaking on the June 4th anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon, Jànos Làzàr, Minister of the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office, called on the beneficiaries of the treaty to apologize, insisting, “Trianon was a diktat, a historic injustice against a nation. The entire western world is indebted to Hungary.”

Lazar was careful to say that Hungary does not advocate for the redrawing of borders, rather they merely mean to ensure that the rights of minority Hungarians are protected everywhere. Romania has not taken it that way. The Romanian authorities used words like “provocative” and “dangerous” to describe the Hungarian government’s treatment of the issue.

Diaspora Politics

This isn’t the first time Lazar has intervened on behalf of Hungarians in Romania. Last spring, Lazar interceded in the case of an ethnic Hungarian brewer, Andras Lenard, in Romania who was being pressed by Heineken. Heineken was suing the upstart brewer claiming that their names, although different languages, were too similar. Hungarian politicians reacted by calling for a boycott of Heineken products as well as proposing legislation to ban the use of the Heineken red star as a communist symbol. Heineken responded by dropping the charges against Lenard.

The intervention of Hungary on behalf Lenard reflects a larger government policy of considering the Hungarian minority in Romania as Hungarians. In 2010, the Orban government expanded Hungary’s citizenship laws, making ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries eligible for citizenship and therefore voting privileges. As the 2018 parliamentary elections appear on the horizon, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been encouraging Hungarians in other Central European countries to register to vote.

By The Independent - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858029095456;view=1up;seq=427 (Jump to 391)
The Independent, (New York), June 14, vol. 98, 1919, p. 391 (Primary source, if any, not cited), Public Domain, Link

Orban’s critics claim that he is merely trying to leverage the 1 million eligible voters in Romania to attain a coveted 2/3rd majority in parliament for his Fidesz party. Fidesz is just two seats away from a majority that would allow them to make constitutional changes. Considering that in the 2014 elections 95% of the vote from citizens domiciled outside of Hungary went to the Fidesz party, mobilizing the Transylvanian vote is of key importance to the Orban administration. The fact that Orban may be able to mobilize thousands of votes in the diaspora is a sign that minority protection in Central Europe is an issue that should not be overlooked.

Orban doesn’t just encourage the dual-national Hungarian minority in Romania to vote in Hungarian elections, drawing further criticism from Romanian figures. In a trip to Transylvania just before the 2016 Romanian elections, Orban stirred angst against the government, claiming that the government is failing to help the ethnic Hungarians. Orban went as far as to say that the Romanian government lacks respect for the Hungarian minority. He urged them to vote in their own best interest in the elections.

Romanian critics of Orban have accused him of trying to meddle in their politics. Former President Traian Basescu even called for the removal of the Hungarian ambassador from Romania.

ReConnect Transylvania

ReConnect Hungary is a birthright program for Canadian and American young adults of Hungarian heritage. The program aims to help Hungarians in North America forge a sense of Hungarian patriotism through travel in the region and volunteer opportunities. Interestingly, the study trip is not limited to the country of Hungary, rather participants visit Hungary, as well as the Hungarian Diaspora in Serbia, Ukraine, or Slovakia to witness, “how young Hungarians outside Hungary are maintaining their identity and traditions.”

As of 2017 the program offers a three month long ReConnect Transylvania program. Participants in this program will spend 3-6 months working with an NGO in Transylvania to “discover the deepest layers of being Hungarian.” ReConnect Hungary also now offers a week long extension on the original two week long ReConnect Hungary program to explore Hungarian culture in Transylvania. By including the Diaspora in the discussion about Hungarian culture, this private-public partnership builds a concept of a Hungarian nation that traverses accepted borders.

ReConnect Hungary is part of a larger trend called diaspora tourism. Proponents of the trend argue that it cultivates a sense of cultural heritage abroad and encourages tourism, while critics claim local leaders are using it to manipulate foreign nationals.

Cultivating strong national identity abroad can be a powerful tool, and not just in dual-citizens. Hungary has already seen some success in this regard. In 1987 the Hungarian Human Rights Foundations, comprising of second generation American citizens, successfully lobbied congress for the removal of Romania’s Most Favored Nation status. The lobbying efforts were in response to the human rights violations of Ceau?escu’s communist regime, as well as specific abuses of the Hungarian population in Romania.

David Stockman Derides The Delirious Dozen Of 2017

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

We have previously noted the massive market cap inflation and then stupendous collapse of the Delirious Dozen of 2000.

The latter included Microsoft, Cisco, Dell, Intel, GE, Yahoo, AIG and Juniper Networks - plus four others which didn"t survive (Lucent, WorldCom, Global Crossing and Nortel).

Together they represented a classic blow-off top in the context of a central bank corrupted stock market. When the bubble neared its asymptote in early 2000, the $3.8 trillion of market cap represented by these 12 names was capturing most of the oxygen left in the casino. That is, the buying frenzy had narrowed to a smaller and smaller group of momo names.

 

That severe concentration pattern was starkly evident during the 40 months between Greenspan"s December 1996 "irrational exuberance" speech and April 2000 (when he told the Senate no bubble was detectable). In that interval, the group"s combined market cap soared from $600 billion to $3.8 trillion.

That represented, in turn, a virtually impossible 75% per annum growth rate for what were already mega-cap stocks. As it happened, in fact, $2.7 trillion or 71% of the group"s bubble peak market cap vanished during the next two years.

What we didn"t mention yesterday, however, is that this bubble top intumescence never really came back. In fact, the market cap of the eight surviving companies---all of which have continued to grow----today stands at just $1.3 trillion or 34% of the 17-years ago peak.

Needless to say, that"s because the market no longer affords the Delirious Dozen of 2000 valuation multiples that are even remotely in the same bubblicious zip code.

Thus, the eight survivors posted combined net income of $52.3 billion during the LTM period ending in September 2017. On the far side of the 1999-2000 tech bubble, therefore, current earnings turn out to be worth 25X---not the 75X recorded back then.

We revisit the rise and fall of these turn of the century high flyers because we believe the same process of market narrowing into a diminishing number of momo names is exactly what is happening again as we reach the asymptote of this latest and greatest central bank fueled bubble.

 

In fact, we have identified a new roster for the Delirious Dozen of 2017 - and have tracked their course over the last 40 months. During that interval, of course, Janet Yellen did not even bother to muse in public about "irrational exuberance" like Greenspan did.

That"s undoubtedly because Fed orthodoxy now holds there just plain aren"t any bubbles---apart from isolated segments like commercial real estate. To the contrary, the 12 geniuses on the FOMC have purportedly vanquished the business cycle entirely, thereby insuring an economic nirvana of perpetual full employment, world without end.

We think otherwise. Accordingly, our new Delirious Dozen consists of the FAANGs (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) plus seven additonal high flyers (Tesla, NVIDIA, Salesforce, Alibaba, UnitedHealth, Home Depot and Broadcom).

Not surprisingly, their combined market cap has soared from $1.7 trillion to $4.0 trillion during the last 40 months in a pattern which is highly reminiscent of the last go round. And for our money, that $2.3 trillion gain represents the same kind of bottled air.

Thus, Amazon is now valued at $550 billion and thereby trades at 293X its $1.9 billion of LTM net income. But all of that net income is attributable to its rent-a-cloud service (AWS) which is arguably worth $100 billion on a standalone basis.

That is to say, the great Bezos E-commerce juggernaut is implicitly valued at $450 billion, yet has not generated a dime of profit from the scorched earth its has left behind in retail land. That"s what we call bottled air.

Likewise, Broadcom trades at 246X net income and Netflix is valued at 194X. These companies may well be the equal of Cisco and Intel as innovators and value generators with a long life of growth ahead.

But both are challenged by ferocious competitors, and have no more chance of sustaining their current absurd valuation multiples than did Cisco (200X then, 19X now) or Intel (60X then, 16X now).

Next consider Salesforce (CRM), which is currently valued at $77 billion, and Tesla, which sports a market cap of $54 billion. Yet both had large net losses during the latest 12 months. In fact, during the last five years, CRM has posted cumulative net losses of $650 million and Tesla has lost $3.3 billion.

Even if these two do manage to avoid the fate of Nortel and Global Crossing, the red ink stained charts below suggests that earning into their combined market cap of $131 billion will take more than a few miracles.

Even Alibaba at 55X, NVIDIA at 50X, and Goggle and Facebook each at 35X are essentially defying math and the business cycle.

The latter two companies, in fact, may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but they are also virtually 100% dependent upon advertising revenue. During the last recession, global ad spending plunged by nearly 9%, as shown below, and by more than 14% in the US alone.

Moreover, the digital capture of market share---of which is 85% is attributable to FB and GOOG----has nearly run its course. Accordingly, no company in a cyclical 3-4% growth industry can sustain a 35X PE multiple for any appreciable period of time.

Much the same can be said for Home Depot (HD), which is currently flying high, but is not capable of permanently sustaining a 25X PE multiple. In fact, its recent results have been flattered owing to the capture of significant market share from the collapse of Sears and due to elevated sales from a standard home improvement spending cycle that is now reaching its peak. Additionally, it has not yet been attacked head-on by Amazon (but that"s surely coming).

But like much else at the current bubble top in the casino, Home Depot"s elevated short-run gains have been confused for permanent growth capacity. However, the verdict on that is crystal clear: During the 11 years since the 2006 housing peak, HD"s net income has grown from $6.1 billion to just $8.6 billion in the October 2017 LTM period.

That computes to a 3.2% per annum growth rate, and Home Depot"s best years are surely behind it. After all, the tsunami of baby boom retires are emptying their nests, not renovating them.

At the same time, America"s soon to be shrinking work force will face ever higher taxes to pay for the upkeep of the former, thereby sharply constraining the discretionary income of the overwhelming share of working households. Man caves and granite kitchen counter-tops are not likely to survive the generational squeeze looming ahead.

Accordingly, we believe that HD"s days as a 25X PE stock are numbered.

In short, among the Delirious Dozen for 2017, only Apple has a reasonable multiple at 19X. But then again, Apple has been cycling along the flat line for more than three years at its towering sales level of $230 billion and $50 billion of net income.

Yet even today"s casino recognizes that given Apple"s monumental size, it is virtually impossible to move the growth needle; and that even one delayed or botched product cycle could cause its $50 billion of net income to take a not inconsiderable plunge.

In short, aside from the unique case of Apple, the Delirious Dozen of 2017 are set-up for a repeat of the massive 2000-2002 deflation of bottled air. That is, in June 2014 the group (ex-Apple) had a market cap of $1.1 trillion, representing 34X its combined net income of $32 billion.

During the 40 months since then, the group"s market cap has nearly tripled to $3.2 trillion, while its net income has climbed to $65 billion. Consequently, the group"s PE multiple has now soared to 49X or to nearly the nosebleed level that pertained among the previous group of high flyers back in April 2000.

Needless to say, the business cycle has not been abolished and this expansion is now 101 months old. In fact, the chart below suggests it may be reaching its "sell-by" date.

But here"s the thing. The bottled air resident among the Delirious Dozen of 2017 is where all the top of the bubble mania has again gotten concentrated.

So when the Black Swan, Orange Swan or Red Swan, as the case may be, finally arrives and they begin to sell AMZN, FB, TSLA or CRM----look out below.

That"s where Wall Street"s next central bank fueled bloodbath is hiding in plain sight.

The "End Of Dreams" And The Saving Of Appearances

Authord by Alastair Crooke via The Automatic Earth blog,

Robert Kagan first called attention to the fact that America would need to awake from its ‘dream’ a decade ago in End of Dreams: The Return of History, and would have to manage the rise of ‘other’ powers, (some greater than others), with adroitness, if it were to avoid a bad road-crash as emerging competitors clashed with the waning dominant power.  

This meant that the US no longer would be able to assert its will everywhere, and on everything – and would have to give ground – especially to China and Russia.  “There’s going to have to be some very painful horse trading”, historian Sir Max Hastings suggests, adding that its pain will be none the less traumatic, since – like Germany after WW1 – America, does not feel itself defeated: Quite the converse, it sees itself having emerged from the Cold War wholly vindicated: in terms of its societal, governmental and capitalist models.

The American-shaped globalist order, in which three American generations have been steeped, had seemed so naturally to flow out from the Cold War, that the onset of world ‘order’ dissolution seems – shockingly, for many – to have struck out of the blue – as it were – with Brexit, and the election of Mr Trump. 

Commentators speak of America needing to be wary of the Thucydides’ Trap (when the then aspiring power, Athens, threatened the primacy of the established hegemon, Sparta, leading to war). But ‘the trap’ today is not simply just about who’s rising ‘up’, and who’s heading ‘down’, in the great-power stakes – for, as Josh Feinman, chief economist for Deutsche Bank, last year  warned, the problem is not just great power competition. But rather: “We’ve seen this movie before. The first great globalization wave, in the half-century or so before World War I, sparked a populist backlash too, and ultimately came crashing down in the cataclysms of 1914 to 1945.”  In short, the two world wars were not just about Germany challenging British hegemony, but were also about globalization ‘backlash’ too – something that is often overlooked. 

In other words, in the wake of WW2, America has been backing itself into the corner of an ‘American-shaped’ (imposed), second wave ‘globalisation’, and that is the major risk posed today (as much as rising China), with ‘populism’ again markedly on the up. And ‘second wave globalisation’ is again yielding predictable political volatility (i.e. in ‘unexpected’ election results).  However, as Max Hastings  suggests, (quoting former UK politician Michael Howard), “we must recognize that the élites, of which he [Howard] himself freely admits to having been a part, have failed to sustain the consent of electorates for this [Euro-centralisation and for globalisation]. This ignoring the need to sustain the consent of the electorate, bears a considerable responsibility for getting us into this mess”.

Further, as Andrew Bracevich underlines globalism has its distinct social ‘flipside’:

“[A] war [has been waged] on (genuine) culture: Under whatever guise, liberal-market globalism is hostile to tradition, community, established norms, and the very idea of a common culture – all of which impinge [adversely] upon the operation of the market, or claims of radical individual autonomy”.

The Thucydides’ Trap for America, rather, as Professor Lears of Rutgers writes, then, is not just the rising of Russia and China, but that of Americans being backed into the corner of not recognizing “that ‘they’ [the liberal globalists] are no longer defending either liberalism or democracy; [these] forms of élite rule – that provoke [such] popular anger – are merely the husk of liberal democracy: The once-vital discourse of liberal democracy has been hollowed out, and transformed into a language of managerial technique … Within this discourse, freedom has been reduced to market behaviour; citizenship to voting; and, efficiency for the public good to efficiency for profit. The rich civic culture that gave rise to popular American politics in the past—unions, churches, local party organizations—has been largely replaced, in both parties, by élites who have benefited from the ‘technocratic turn’”.

“As long as prosperity continued to increase as it has since 1945, western electorates were willing to give élites a very considerable measure of discretion about what they did, [whether in creating the EU], or whatever it might be. They were willing to acquiesce. Now, prosperity is being squeezed, wages are stagnant, and for many people unlikely to rise much in real terms.   It is going to be much more difficult to sustain the consent of Western electorates for purposes which the élites might consider as [somehow] ‘enlightened and unselfish’”. (Hastings again – with emphasis added).

And here lies the real ‘trap’: it is not that “prosperity is being squeezed” as per Hastings, but that the economy has rather, been divaricated into the ‘squeezed 60%’ and the asset-holding, and enriched 40% (as Ray Dalio describes it). Last month Dalio, the billionaire founder of top hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, posted a new article, “The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%”.  He believes it is a serious mistake to think you can analyze or understand “the” economy because we now have two of them. The wealth and income levels are so skewed between top and bottom that “average” indicators no longer reflect the average person’s experience or living conditions. Dalio explains with this chart:

The red line is the share of US wealth owned by the bottom 90% of the population, and the green line is the share held by the top 0.1%. Right now they are about the same, but notice the trend. The wealthiest 0.1% has been increasing its share of wealth since the 1980s, while the bottom 90% has been losing ground. But it would be a mistake to understand this phenomenon – ‘populism’ as it is labelled in Dalio’s chart – or, the push to recover national culture and sovereignty – as simply a gripe about inequity. It has become since 2009 much more than that: it has become a matter of survival for a major segment of the American and European population (especially, as it coincides with a pensions crisis, which will leave many impoverished in their old age): 

“Prior to 2009, debt was able to support a rising standard of living…”, Raúl Ilargi Meijer says, “but less than a decade later, [personal debt], can’t even maintain the status quo. That’s what you call a breaking point.” (Alastair: Or, even, a precursor to civil violence?)

 

“To put that in numbers, there’s a current shortfall of $18,176 between the standard of living and real disposable incomes. In other words, no matter how much people are borrowing, their standard of living is in decline. 

 

“Something else we can glean from the graphs is that after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-9, the economy never recovered. The S&P may have, and the banks are back to profitable ways and big bonuses, but that has nothing to do with real Americans in their own real economy. 2009 was a turning point, and the crisis never looked back”.

And Max Hastings’ point is that with austerity gone, early popular acquiescence has turned to anger against the élites – for having so taken them for granted in their utopian globalist projects.

Now the wider point: what we have here is the intersection of geo-politics with geo-finance. Both are now wholly contingent on the ‘saving of appearances’.  One co-constitutes the other.  One is the saving of appearance that America is not losing ‘respect’, or being disdained in the international arena, as it attenuates its global commitments (that is the Thucydides ‘syndrome’), and two, saving the appearance that ‘recovery’ and ‘prosperity for all’, are continuing to unfold nicely in the economy (the world converging globally to western values ‘syndrome’). 

Both these aspects to the dissolution of today’s western ‘modernity’ are intertwined, and co-constituting, and therefore likely to march in tandem – at least for now:  western ‘prosperity’ underwrites the global order, and the global order underwrites American ‘prosperity’.  The American and European élites therefore find themselves painted into a globalised ‘rules-based order’ corner, geo-politically, just as the Central Bankers have been backed into their QE, low or negative interest rate corner – from which there is no easy escape, either. 

The term ‘globalisation’ has been used to paint a landscape that is both inevitable, and beneficent: “free trade floats all boats; everywhere” is the meme. Devotees of globalisation however, never examine rigorously whether David Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory still holds good in the contemporary world (Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, however, being a notable exception). There just has been no point in asking the fundamentally political (as opposed to technical) question: Has the resulting off-shoring of supply lines, truly been in our interest – politically, as well as financially?  And has the concomitant – globalist disembedding of humans from national culture, community and sovereignty, and the rise of the apolitical, neo-liberal, chameleon-identity ‘Self’, been in the general political and societal interest, too?

It may be objected that Trump is not a globalist.  Whilst it is true that he does not favour America shouldering the claims of a world order; he – himself – protests loudly that he is a globalist – but it is just that he is a hard-nosed, New York businessman, type of globalist: that’s all.  Globalisation (in the neo-liberal mode), remains as a western totem, rightly, or not, according to political taste.

Where now? In the domestic field, the Central Banks’ easy ‘group think’ on QE, low or negative interest-rates, and ballooning public and private debt, has been pursued now for so long and so extensively, that it has both given us Dalio’s Two Economies, and no way back.   It has become a vicious circle: as high debt, to GDP ratios, low-interest zombification of entities and shrinking personal disposable income in the 60%, have depressed growth. Yet, paradoxically, never has the need for more of the same – QE, low or negative interest rates, or even ‘helicopter’ income – been so widely extolled — and, at the very moment when their drawbacks have become so widely identified, even by central bankers, themselves.

So here we are: there is a messy, and bitter, divorce taking place in our societies between the 60% and the 40% ‘tribes’. Asset valuations indeed have never been higher. Yet growth by contrast, has, on average, been ratcheting down, decade by decade – and for some, the situation has become truly existential (those for whom even additional debt cannot sustain their non-discretionary outgoings).

Where do we go from here?  A continuation of the existing financial paradigm is what everyone believes; what everyone expects (wants) – and is what we likely will get.  It might even be deepened a little, in the wake of a market hiccough (S&P down by more than 2%).  And in the case of a financial black swan, we may witness the system literally ‘hosed down’ with newly created ‘money’.  But essentially, the business and trade cycle will continue to be heavily repressed – volatility slammed down – and the S&P be the metric of national well-being.

Not only do the markets ‘believe it’, President Trump needs it: geo-politically he likes to do his style of negotiating from a position of strength (and not from one of economic crisis); and internally, he is at ‘war’ with the Establishment.  With the S&P touching records daily, he is immune from taunts of incompetence (regardless of whether not the highs have anything to do with the President).  His base likes it too: their meagre retirement portfolios at least are rising in value. And in any event, it is not surprising if Trump is a low interest, plentiful liquidity, expanding balance sheet, man globally:  It is how he made his billions, personally.

Of course, the flip side to continuing the ‘easing’ paradigm is the ongoing hidden transfer of wealth from general taxpayers (the 60%) to the 40%: more populism; more unexpected election outcomes in Europe; more fake-ness; quicker dissolution of the glue holding society together; more political process, less outcome; less ability to address the needs of collective purpose, etcetera — rising rancour and push-back, in a word. This is the implication.

In parallel, the saving of appearance in geo-politics seems to require its slamming down of volatility too (and in the EU, not least – i.e. Catalonia).  People want to believe it (in American power); important sectors of the economy want it, (need it): the appearance of America’s global standing must be preserved.  Repressing North Korea, ‘slamming down’ Iran can save appearances (America is strong), but the flip-side is the increased danger of war – whether inadvertently triggered, or by the US cornering itself into it.  Actually, ebbing power is something that you smell: false bravura only heightens the odour of weakness.

So, continuance of the paradigms (financial and geopolitical), and the continuance of ‘populist push-back’ (i.e. volatility) seem set. Is Josh Feinman of Deutsche Bank then right when he says: “We’ve seen this movie before. The first great globalization wave, in the half-century or so before World War I, [it] sparked a populist backlash too, and ultimately came crashing down in the cataclysms of 1914 to 1945.” Is a financial crisis inevitable – ultimately?  Is war – a confrontation with either Russia, China or N. Korea – unavoidable?

Who can say, for sure?  But the repeating of history is not inevitable.  Financial re-set at some point, has become inevitable, it would appear. It has taken time for the old meme to fade, and weaken its hold sufficiently. Hemingway famously said about bankruptcy (his), that it starts only very slowly, but ends lightningly fast.  The political impulse for a change in the social and cultural paradigm however does seem to be unfolding at an accelerating pace. ‘Populism’ and ‘unexpected’ election results are acting as its accelerant. And the intellectual context for a seismic economic policy shift, is in place too:  monetary policy is seen to be bust, and the economic ‘models’ have been seen to be plain wrong. TINA (there is no alternative) is wobbling on her pedestal, and seems poised to topple over.

Of course there are alternatives.  But will they arrive in time?  Perhaps the existing paradigms are destined to endure a while yet … ’til Hemingway’s observation about bankruptcy sliding unstoppably fast towards the end is further proven as a truism?  In the meantime: we wait; shackled by inertia, and backed into a corner.

"This Is A Paralyzed Market": Hedge Fund Turnover Drops To All Time Low

Back in July, Canaccord analyst Brian Reynolds put out a contrarian piece which broke with numerous conventional wisdom norms about the state of the market, key among which was that traders are not complacent, but rather - in light of collapsing trading volumes, something which has plagued bank income statements in the past 2 quarters - simply paralyzed, as they no longer have a grasp of financial "logic" when it is all superceded by central bank liquidity injections, and as such most trades feel fake, forced and just part of the FOMO charade to avoid losing one"s job.

As Reynolds explained, "Investors are not complacent. Their stances range from extremely aggressive to bearish" and added that these "opposing forces have led to a compression of volatility. When stocks have rallied strongly, they have then been met with investor selling. When stocks sell off, the buybacks have picked up after the selling runs its course. That has been the case for more than eight years. Those forces have led to an equity bull market that moves higher in fits and starts, with some brief pullbacks from time to time. Given the positioning of equity investors and continued flows into credit, we do not see that pattern changing for some time." Meanwhile, sandwiched inbetween these two trends, investors - both retail and institutional - find themselves in trade limbo, and the outcome is a gradual decline in trading volumes "which is more reflective of paralysis than complacency among equity investors."

And while one can posit theories explaining this bizarre market until one is blue in the face, the most vivid confirmation of Reyonld"s "paralysis" thesis emerged in the latest batch of hedge fund 13Fs, which was analyzed by Goldman earlier this week, and noted here in "These Are The Top 50 Hedge Fund Long And Short Positions."

In the report, Goldman highlighted various notable outliers, such as the latest record high in hedge fund leverage...

... coupled with the recent plunge in short interest (which as a share of S&P 500 market cap sits just below 2.0%, matching January of this year as the lowest level since 2012)...

... even as hedge fund "crowding" in a handful of top names hits an all time high:

But the most interesting to us, and the hedge fund community, we believe is the following chart, which shows that hedge fund portfolio turnover continued its downward trend and reached a new record low in the third quarter Across all portfolio positions, turnover registered 26% in 3Q. Turnover of the largest quartile of positions, which make up the vast majority of fund portfolios, fell to just 13%.

This means that once hedge funds have established positions, they no longer trade in and out, but simply lean back and let it ride. And why not: with the most popular hedge fund positions this year being also the best performing ones, namely Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba, Alphabet and Microsoft, why ever both selling.  Indeed, as the next chart shows, the bulk of the collapsing turnover is largely due to tech stocks:

Of course, this strategy of loading up on winner and letting them ride is a two-edged sword. while it is the best strategy on the way up, it also becomes a quasi private equity strategy, in which the price formation is created on the margin with increasingly less volume. And, since such tech holdings are becoming ever more illiquid, the threat is what happens once the narrative shifts and instead of buying, hedge funds start to sell these most concentrated of growth names. One could say that a tech selloff is emerging as one of the more concerning black - or at least gray - swans in the market. In fact, we are did say just that...

Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba, Google, Microsoft are the 5 most widely held HF stocks. Tech selloff = black swan pic.twitter.com/XXJ6PRbwUP

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 22, 2017