Why Monetary Policy Will Cancel Out Fiscal Policy

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

Good cheer has arrived at precisely the perfect moment.  You can really see it.  Record stock prices, stout economic growth, and a GOP tax reform bill to boot.  Has there ever been a more flawless week leading up to Christmas?

We can’t think of one off hand.  And if we could, we wouldn’t let it detract from the present merriment.  Like bellowing out the verses of Joy to the World at a Christmas Eve candlelight service, it sure feels magnificent – don’t it?

The cocktail of record stock prices, robust GDP growth, and reforms to the tax code has the sweet warmth of a glass of spiked eggnog.  Not long ago, if you recall, a Dow Jones Industrial Average above 25,000 was impossible.  Yet somehow, in the blink of an eye, it has moved to just a peppermint stick shy of this momentous milestone – and we’re all rich because of it.

So, too, the United States economy is now growing with the spry energy of Santa’s elves.  According to Commerce Department, U.S. GDP increased in the third quarter at a rate of 3.2 percent.  What’s more, according to the New York Fed’s Nowcast report, and their Data Flow through December 15, U.S. GDP is expanding in the fourth quarter at an annualized rate of 3.98 percent.

Indeed, annualized GDP growth above 3 percent is both remarkable and extraordinary.  Remember, the last time U.S. GDP grew by 3 percent or more for an entire calendar year was 2005.  Several years before the iPhone was invented.

A Cornerstone Promise of the GOP Tax Reform Bill

But despite closing out the year strong, 2017 won’t be the year when annual U.S. GDP growth finally eclipses 3 percent.  By our rough calculations, annual GDP growth for 2017, using the Q4 estimate, comes out to 2.92 percent.  What to make of it…

Certainly, strong GDP growth is a cornerstone promise of the GOP tax reform bill.  Specifically, the promise is that resultant economic growth will pay for the tax cuts.  Yet based on the work of one group of number crunchers, the expectation that the U.S. economy will produce 3 percent economic growth in 2018 is wishful thinking.  The Tax Foundation, an outfit out of Washington, offered the following assessment:

“According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly lower marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to a 1.7 percent increase in GDP over the long term, 1.5 percent higher wages, and an additional 339,000 full-time equivalent jobs.  In 2018, our model predicts that GDP would be 2.45 percent, compared to baseline growth of 2.01 percent.”

To be clear, we don’t know what assumptions went into the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model.  Does it factor in the latent effects of quantitative tightening?  Does it assume a total of 3 Fed rate hikes in 2018?  What about the flattening yield curve?

In short, will tightening credit markets offset any boost that tax cuts are expected to deliver to the economy?  In other words, will monetary policy cancel out fiscal policy?

Most likely it will.  Here’s why…

Why Monetary Policy Will Cancel Out Fiscal Policy

Plain and simple, the entire financial system and economy has become fully dependent on cheap and ever expanding credit.  Consumers, the federal government, and corporations have gone hog wild gorging on a decade of artificially suppressed, cheap credit.

Presently, American’s owe $3.8 trillion in outstanding consumer credit – some of which, no doubt, was used to purchase light up reindeer antlers.  Of this, more than $1.2 trillion of consumer spending has been borrowed into the economy over the last decade.  This is consumer spending that has been borrowed from the future into the present.

Similarly, over the last decade the federal government has borrowed and spent over $11 trillion, bringing the federal debt from $9 trillion to over $20 trillion.  That’s more than a doubling of the debt in just 10 years.

But that’s not all.  Corporations have been on a massive borrowing and spending binge too.  Total outstanding nonfinancial corporate debt has jumped from about $3.2 trillion in 2007 to over $6 trillion today.  Again, that’s a doubling of debt over the last decade.

What makes the growth of consumer, government, and corporate borrowing over this period so dangerous – in addition to its pure enormity – is that it was encouraged by the Fed’s artificially low interest rates.  The scale and magnitude of this cheap credit expansion is nothing short of a manic credit bubble.

The point is, as mentioned last week, we appear to be entering a period where the price of credit – specifically, interest rates – rise and, thus, credit contracts.  Naturally, this is occurring at the worst possible time; after everything and everyone has become wholly dependent on cheap, expanding credit.

As the Fed raises interest rates, borrowing costs become more expensive.  With respect to government debt, it will take a larger and larger share of the government’s budget to finance the debt.  This will reduce the funds that the government can spend elsewhere.  Similarly, with respect to consumers and corporations, increasing borrowing costs will subtract from spending and investment.

And this is precisely why monetary policy will cancel out fiscal policy.  And this is precisely why the cornerstone promise of the GOP tax reform bill will come up empty.  And this is precisely why we are all doomed.

And on that cheery note, we’ll conclude our ruminations.

Record Calm Stock Market Gets A Shock

Via Dana Lyons" Tumblr,

After a record run of muted movement, will recent volatility send negative shock waves through stock market?

The recent uptick in stock volatility has some investors on edge (OK, it is mostly just financial news editors on edge). The truth is, while volatility over the past week has seen an increase, it is not all that far away from the historical norm. Last Thursday through Monday, for example, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) experienced 3 straight “volatile” days, with daily ranges of between 1% and 1.6% on all 3 days. Looking historically, however, we find that the average daily range in the DJIA over the last 90 years is 1.6%. Even during the current bull market since 2009, the average range is 1.08%. Thus, the recent action should hardly be characterized as volatile.

The reason it perhaps seems so tumultuous is because we are emerging from a long stretch of calm in the market – record calm, at that. Prior to Thursday, the DJIA had gone 72 days without experiencing a daily range as wide as 1%. If that sounds like a long stretch, it’s because it is a record. In fact, the record prior to this recent streak was just 49 days in a run that ended in late February of this year. And prior to 2016, the record going back to 1928, according to our database, was a mere 32-day streak back in 1944 – less than half the recent streak.

Furthermore, historically, there have been just 16 streaks that have lasted as long as 21 days, i.e., 1 month.

Interestingly, this recent streak is the first of any of the 16 that saw 3 straight 1% daily ranges immediately following its culmination. So is mean-reversion starting to rear its volatile head here following the record calm? And is there a nefarious message to the sudden uptick in volatility?

*  *   *

If you’re interested in the “all-access” version of our charts and research, please check out The Lyons Share. Find out what we’re investing in, when we’re getting in – and when we’re getting out. Considering that we may well be entering an investment environment tailor made for our active, risk-managed approach, there has never been a better time to reap the benefits of this service. Thanks for reading!

The Moment The Market Broke: "The Behavior Of Volatility Changed Entirely In 2014"

Earlier today we showed a remarkable chart - and assertion - from Bank of America: "In every major market shock since the 2013 Taper Tantrum, central banks have stepped in (even if verbally) to protect markets. Following the Brexit vote, markets no longer needed to hear from CBs as they rebounded so quickly that CBs didn’t need to respond." As a result, buy-the-dip has a become a self-fulfilling put.

The immediate result of this dynamic has been two-fold: i) investors now buy every dip, or as Bank of America notes, "Investors no longer fear shocks, but love them, as it is an opportunity to predictably generate alpha.", and ii) selling of vol has become a self-reinforcing dynamic, in which lower VIX begets more vol-selling by "yield-starved investors", leading to even lower VIX as the shock that can reset the feedback loop is no longer possible, and thus the strike price on the Fed"s put can not be put to a market test.

These observations prompt BofA"s derivatives expert Benjamin Bowler to ask the rhetorical question: "volatility: new normal or bubble?" and answer: "It"s a bubble." Indeed it is, but absent the abovementioned market-clearing shock, it is difficult, if not impossible to anticipate what can burst this bubble.

In the meantime, the market has spawned some spectacular distortions, including the following observation: "As one measure of volatility, the Dow Jones Industrial Average traded in its tightest trading range since 1900 this year." Here is Bowler:

While asset valuations are not at life-extremes, volatility is. In 2017 the Dow traded in a 110yr record tight trading range, the VIX hit all-time lows, and US equities reversed from sell-offs at near their fastest pace in 90 yrs. Investors no longer fear risk but love it, as it’s another opportunity to harvest “dip-alpha”. Volatility across asset classes has decoupled from uncertainty. Even if seemingly irrational, apathy to all risk has been the right trade and an impossible trend for most to fight – the definition of a bubble.

A bubble, he adds, "induced by years of heavy handed central bank influence, where investors have learned that it has not paid to panic." Bowler asks readers to consider the following:

As one measure of volatility, the Dow Jones Industrial Average traded in its tightest trading range since 1900 this year

Near 90yr records are occurring in the speed that US equities are recovering from dips

The VIX is near 26yr lows despite political & policy uncertainty recently near 26yr highs

Gold call options price less than 1 in 100 chance of rising North Korean tensions in the face of rising North Korean tensions

The above leads Bowler to concludes that "while there is active debate about whether risk-assets like equities and credit are overvalued, it is much harder to argue that currently depressed volatility levels are unsustainable when near 100yr records in terms of low vol and the lack of persistence of any shock are being recorded."

So when did the market "break", and when did the behavior of volatility change so dramatically?

This overarching question has been plaguing Wall Street strategists for much of 2017. In July, we presented one answer from Deutsche Bank"s Aleksandar Kocic who pointed out the divergence between the economic policy uncertainty index and the VIX, which took place roughly in 2012, prompting the derivatives expert to conclude that something "snapped" roughly around that time, or as Kocic said, sometime in 2012 it was as if the markets “lost their capacity to deal with uncertainty.”

Bank of America takes a somewhat different approach, and instead of looking at the divergence between volatility and news - or shock - flow, highlights the moment BTFD became religion.

According to Bowler, "the nature of volatility since 2014 has entirely changed, with volatility shocks retracing at record speed. Investors no longer fear shocks, but love them, as it is an opportunity to predictably generate alpha." This is demonstrated in the following stunning chart which not only shows that every VIX dip is now just an opportunity to buy it, but that the market"s "fragility" is at an all time high based on the surging frequency of vol spike events, which in turn, and paradoxically, reassure investors that a central bank backstop can not be too far away.

BofA is hardly the first to point out this phenomenon: almost exactly one year ago, it was JPM"s "quant wizard" who highlighted precisely the same, if not through the perspective of VIX but the overall market response to recover from "shock" events:

It appears that the time horizon of macro traders has shortened, likely as a result of increased participation of machines and algorithms that are quicker to adjust to significant events and can eliminate trading activity of slower investors. Consider for example the US elections - traders in Japan registered a 5.4% Nikkei drop on the 9th, followed by a 6.7% rally on the 10th, while S&P 500 investors did not register a significant close-to-close move over the election (due to market hours difference). These two days were enough to shift the volatility regime (usually calculated from closing returns) for the whole of 2016 for the Japanese equity market, and leave it unchanged for S&P 500 (e.g. think of rebalancing needs of a hypothetical risk parity fund, or a short volatility strategy based on Nikkei vs. one based on S&P 500). We also noticed that for a number of significant catalysts this year (Brexit, US Election, Italy Referendum) broad expectations were wrong both on the outcome and the directionally forecasted impact. It is possible that the lack of market reaction (or a reaction that went against the accepted narrative) was in part driven by investors’ reluctance to transact (“two negatives equal a positive”).

Ah yes, the infamous "investor reluctance to transact", which has only gotten worse as we hinted in our "trader paralysis" post, and which Goldman demonstrated vividly just last month when the bank showed that hedge fund turnover has now dropped to an all time low as virtually nobody trades anymore.

Whatever the reason behind the broken market, however, whether it is central banks, machines, algos, risk parity funds, vol-targeting strategies,  self-reinforcing "Pavlovian" dynamics, or simply traders no longer trading, the question is what comes next? While we will have a more detailed breakdown in a subsequent post, here are Bowler"s three questions, and several answers of what to expect in 2018:

As we enter 2018, three questions are top of mind when it comes to volatility:

1. Is 2018 the year when vol begins to normalize, or is this the “new normal”?


2. As low vol threatens to sow the seeds of the next crisis, how will this end?


3. Where does vol go in the longer-run; can we ever see the old-normal return?

 

Vol likely to rise off extreme lows; ’87 crash unlikely, but so is VIX averaging 20 While we will look at each question in more detail in turn, the short answers are:

1. Higher not lower vol: We think 2018 is most likely to see higher (not lower vol) as the Fed builds more “ammunition” in terms of rate-hikes leaving them less sensitive to financial market conditions (i.e. pushing the Fed put strike lower), and as CB balance sheets peak in 2018.


2. Vol bubble more likely to deflate than explode: While the risk of “fragility” shocks due to positioning and feeble liquidity is high, we think the level of leverage today, which is lower compared to the last time vol was this depressed (2007), does not present the same risks as then.


3. Vol to remain low vs. long-run average: However, to the extent we remain in a low inflation/low rates environment, we may also remain in a lower than normal vol environment. So while VIX near 9 is an unsustainable bubble, VIX at 20 (the long-run average) may also be unsustainable in a slower growth world.

And BofA"s conclusion:

What to watch for? In a world slaved to rates, inflation remains key

 

From a macro perspective, we continue to believe unexpected inflation is the kryptonite for volatility. Inflation presents a “triple whammy”, first driving economic vol higher, destabilizing bond markets (and putting bond/equity correlation at risk), but importantly handcuffing central banks from being as sensitive to financial markets. In other words it both drives fundamental risk higher and significantly impairs the protection markets have become dependent on. Rising rates vol is key to watch.

 

How bad can it get? From here Aug-15 shock likely but ’87 crash is improbable

 

Interestingly, while the world is hyper-focused on how big the “short-vol” trade is, history shows that any liquidity shock large enough to create an equity bear market (20% fall in equities, similar to 1987 or LTCM crisis) provides a forewarning in terms of rising volatility first (look for S&P vol to double from 10 to 20). Fragility shocks (similar to Aug-15) that happen without warning remain the bigger risk today in our view.

 

So, how do you trade this? Long “vol beta”, cheap options for direction

 

The most important question is, how do you trade this environment where investors have given up on risk (or have learned to love it as buying dips has been “free money”). Evidence of a “bubble in apathy” is strong, and we believe it is unsustainable. However, the problem with any bubble is not recognizing you are in it but rather timing its end. Hence the key is finding trades that will profit from a change in environment but carry well and hence don’t require perfect timing. The beauty of today’s low vol is that it can be cheap to own optionality (for example for upside stock replacement) which affords the benefit of not having to time when markets may peak.

 

Does this mean short vol is a bad idea? No, but it needs to be smartly managed

 

Importantly, believing that today’s low vol is unsustainable does not mean all short vol positions are bad. Don’t forget, owning any risk asset (equity, credit etc.) is a short-vol trade. The key is finding the best short vol opportunity (highest risk-adjusted returns), while managing downside risks appropriately. Harvesting rich vol risk-premia is key to funding cheaper long vol positions elsewhere.

THE BLIND CONSPIRACY: The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change

By The SRSrocco Report,

The gold market is heading towards a big fundamental change that few are prepared.  While many analysts in the alternative media community suggest that the gold price is manipulated due to Fed and Central bank intervention, there is another more obscure rationale that is the likely culprit.  I call it, "The Blind Conspiracy."

But, before I get into the details of this Blind Conspiracy, there are a few very troubling developments in the alternative media community that I would like to discuss first.  The bulk of these concerns has to do with the increasing amount of faulty analysis and misinformation as well as the peddling of lousy conspiracy theories on the internet.

Why is this a big problem?  Because a lot of readers are being misguided as to the true nature of the serious predicament we are facing.  Half of the emails that I receive are from readers who are bringing up doubts based on other analysts" faulty analysis and misinformation.  Thus, it takes a great deal of effort to provide the real facts and data to counteract the damage being done by certain individuals, even those with good intentions.

Furthermore, an increasing number of so-called precious metals analysts have switched over to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, believing that gold and silver will no longer function as monetary metals.  However, some of these analysts suggest that silver will still be valuable because it will be used as critical raw material in advanced products in our new HIGH-TECH WORLD.  I find this idea of a future modern high-tech world quite amusing when we can"t even maintain the failing complex infrastructure we are currently using.

American Society Of Civil Engineers 2017:  U.S. Infrastructure Grade Is...???

According to the Amercian Society Of Civil Engineers, ASCE, they just came out with their grade this year for U.S. infrastructure.  Does anyone want to guess what overall grade we received here in the good ole U.S. of A?  The ASCE gave us a D+:

Well, at least a D+ isn"t an "F" grade.  Here is the ASCE"s Infrastructure Report Card Grading Scale for receiving a "D":

"D" GRADE = POOR, AT RISK
The infrastructure is in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and capacity are of serious concern with strong risk of failure.

The ASCE U.S. Infrastructure Report also provides separate grades for different aspects of U.S. infrastructure.  For example, the U.S. Energy Infrastructure received a "D+" as well.  This is a brief description of the Energy Infrastructure:

Much of the U.S. energy system predates the turn of the 21st century. Most electric transmission and distribution lines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a 50-year life expectancy, and the more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the lower 48 states’ power grids are at full capacity.

Moreover, the report states that $4.5 trillion needs to be invested 2016-2025 to raise the U.S. infrastructure to a "B" Grade.  However, only $2.5 trillion has been budgeted.  Thus, we are $2 trillion short of the total amount needed.  Regardless, I doubt we will be able to spend anywhere close to the budgeted $2.5 trillion over the next decade for our infrastructure.  Unfortunately, I see the U.S. Government and private sector running into serious financial trouble by 2020 as the massive amount of debt and derivatives finally take down the system.

So, the question remains.  How are we going to move into a new HIGH-TECH world if we can"t even maintain our current infrastructure?

The notion that we can bring on some new "Energy Technology" fails to consider the tremendous amount of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, and logistics to repair and maintain our current infrastructure.  You see, we have much bigger problems than just replacing an energy source or technology.  But, to understand that principle, you must look past superficial thinking and "Silver-Bullet energy technologies."

Now, if you hear certain analysts suggesting that gold and silver will no longer be used as money in the future because cryptocurrencies will take over the monetary role in our new high-tech world, you may want to contact them and provide the link to the U.S. Infrastructure D+ Grade Report.

Destroying Once Again.... Certain Myths About The Gold Market

If I collected an ounce of gold for every email that I have received about patently false gold myths and conspiracies; I could buy one hell of a lot of silver....LOL.  Gosh, if I went back to my email folder and added up all the emails on this subject, it would number well over 500 in my ten years publishing articles in the alternative media community.  However, I continue to receive the same type of emails because individuals are still being misled.

Before I begin, let me say that I focus my work on disproving the faulty analysis by other individuals, and not directing anything negative towards the person.  I am adamantly against the idea of "targeting the messenger."  Rather, I like to target the faulty message.  So, there is nothing personal in my attempt to set the record straight.

Let me start off by saying.... THERE AREN"T MILLIONS OF TONS OF HIDDEN GOLD in the world.  Anyone who continues to believe this needs to pay close attention to the following information.

One of my readers sent me the following recent YouTube video by Bix Weir, titled "Vast Gold Riches Hidden In The Grand Canyon":

In the video, Bix quotes a New York Times article published on June 19, 1912, that proclaimed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon.  According to Bix, this massive gold find is what prompted the starting of the Federal Reserve because billions of ounces of new gold from the Grand Canyon dumped into the market would destroy the monetary system.

While this may sound plausible to the layman, if we carefully read the article and do some additional research, we will come to a much different conclusion than what Mr. Weir is suggesting.

First, Bix makes a grave error during the interview when he states "billions of ounces of gold," rather than "billions of Dollars of gold."  Here is the segment of the article:

There"s a big difference between a billion ounces of gold and a billion dollars worth of gold.  For example, the market price of gold in 1912 was $20.65 an ounce.  If we assume that $2 billion worth of gold was extracted from the Grand Canyon, it would equal approximately 100 million oz of gold.  If we take it a step further and convert it to metric tons, it would equal 3,110 metric tons.... a figure much much lower than one million tons stated by Mr. Weir.

Second, the article provides us with an idea of the very low quality of the gold found in the silt on the banks of the Grand Canyon:

As we can see, the individual in charge of the mining operation in the Grand Canyon stated that the value of gold was worth 50 cents per yard.  When gold miners refer to a "yard," they mean a cubic yard or a volume that equals 1.3 tons.  With an ounce of gold worth $20 in 1912, 50 cents a yard is a tiny amount of gold.  Thus, 50 cents worth of gold in a yard is approximately 0.025 oz or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold.

Let"s compare the supposed vast Grand Canyon gold riches worth 50 cents a yard to the gold mining that took place in Alaska during the same period.  According to the data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1912 Report:

This chart represents "Placer" gold mining in Alaska, which was the same type of gold mining that took place on the banks of the Grand Canyon.  Placer gold mining is the process of washing gold from gravel, sand or silt.  Lode mining is extracting gold ores from veins in rock.  Here we can see that the average value of gold recovered in Alaska in 1912 was $2.10 per cubic yard.  Now, why on earth would anyone want to go to the remote location in the Grand Canyon and mine gold for 50 cents a yard when you could receive four times as much in Alaska???  Please, someone forward that information to Mr. Weir.

Third, the notion of extracting Billions of Dollars of gold from the Grand Canyon fails logistics miserably.  Let"s overlook  Mr. Weir"s error in quoting billions of ounces of gold rather than billion dollars of gold and consider the tremendous logistics of mining that amount gold out of the Grand Canyon.  According to the same U.S. Bureau of Mines 1912 Report linked above, Alaska produced a total of 7.4 million oz of gold worth $154 million between 1880 and 1912:

So, in over three decades of mining placer gold in Alaska, the total amount was $154 million.  Furthermore, the value of the gold per yard was likely much higher between 1880-1900.  Regardless, it took a great deal of human resources, energy, and capital to produce the $154 million worth of gold and the most ever produced in one year during that time-period in Alaska, was 1,066,000 oz of gold in 1906 valued at over $22 million.

Which brings us to the next logical conclusion.... was it ever possible for anyone to produce billions of dollars worth of gold valued at 50 cents a yard in the Grand Canyon when a small percentage of that amount ($154 million) took over three decades to produce in Alaska?  Hell, even during the mighty California Gold Rush of 1848, the peak year of 3.9 million ounces in 1852 was only worth $80 million.  However, the average annual gold production for the California gold rush was only 1.3 million ounces per year valued at $26 million.  It would take a great deal of time mining gold during the famous California Gold Rush to equal just $1 billion.

Even at $1 billion, that is only 50 million oz of gold or a measly 1,555 metric tons of gold.  Again, nowhere near the one million tons of gold suggested by Mr. Weir.

Lastly, the supposed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon came to a dismal end.  That"s correct.  If we spent a few minutes doing a bit of research on the internet, we would find out The Rest Of The Ugly Story.

(American Placer Gold - Spencer Mining Operation 1911, Grand Canyon)

According to Arizona State history of gold mining at Lee Ferry in the Grand Canyon, the American Placer Gold company needed coal to process the gold.  Unfortunately, the only coal seam was 28 miles away.  So, the gold mining investors decided to incorporate a steamboat to transport the coal:

Investors decided a 92-foot steamboat would improve coal transport and gold production; it was ordered and assembled by late February 1912. Dubbed the Charles H. Spencer, the steamboat performed the way it was supposed to, but it burned most of the coal it transported in the process. Spencer also had trouble with his amalgamator and by 1912 his investors had seen enough and shut the project down. Spencer left, and his boat sank to the bottom of the Colorado River. The Charles H. Spencer is now on the National Register of Historic Places as a shipwreck in Arizona.

Just consider for a moment the type of intellectual thought process taken by these investors who couldn"t understand that the steamboat would consume most of the coal during its 28-mile trip.

Thus, the LIFE & DEATH of the Great Vast Gold Riches in the Grand Canyon came to an abrupt end, not because there were billions of ounces of gold that would destroy the global monetary system, but rather due to the typical mistake made by investors.  And that is... the belief that utterly incompetent management and miners could extract low-quality gold that is uneconomical to produce.

So, if we look at the New York Times article that Mr. Weir quotes as his source of billions of ounces of gold, we can logically assume that it was likely written by the company spokesman to get more POOR UNWORTHY INVESTOR SLOBS to purchase the American Placer Gold stock before it went belly-up.  It"s called the PUMP and DUMP.... a shady stock marketing technique that has been going on for hundreds of years.

If we can have an open mind and the ability to discern fact from fiction or lousy conspiracy theories, we can finally put an end to the notion that the world has a Million Tons of Hidden Gold in the world.

THE BLIND CONSPIRACY:  The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change

Now that we have dispensed with certain conspiracies that don"t pass the smell test, there is a real one that very few are aware.  I call it the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  The interesting thing about this conspiracy is that nobody really knows about it.  However, it behaves like a conspiracy because many individuals and parties are manipulating the market which is providing a false sense of security to the average investor.

Thus, investors with a false sense of security, continue to invest in STOCKS, BONDS, and REAL ESTATE at amazing inflated values.  Today, the Dow Jones hit a new record high of 24,272 points:

If you look at this chart of the Dow Jones Index, it is starting to resemble the Bitcoin chart.  However, Bitcoin"s graph is moving up at a level  ten times more insane than the Dow Jones Index:

While the Dow Jones Index increased 4,200 points, or 21% since the beginning of 2017, the Bitcoin price has surged more than $9,000, or a staggering 1,125% increase.  Furthermore, the Bitcoin price doubled in just the past month.  This is completely insane.  Even though a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts are shouting for $20,000 and $100,000 Bitcoin, if we are ever going to get there, there needs to be a serious correction first.  However, we may have already seen the top of Bitcoin at $11,400.

Folks, nothing goes straight up and then continues even higher.  I would be very cautious about investing in Bitcoin at this time.  Both the stock market and cryptocurrencies are extremely overbought... to say the least.  On the other hand, gold and silver have been selling off over the past several days and are even closer to their lows and cost of production.

Getting back to the Blind Conspiracy and the Big Fundamental Change in the gold market, investors are entirely in the dark about the dire energy predicament we are facing.  I continue to receive emails from individuals in various industries that tell me the "Situation is MUCH WORSE than you realize."  Also, there are good CLUES published in the media if you are IN-TUNE to this information.

According to this jewel, titled Oil Major: 70% Of Crude Can Be Left In The Ground, by Nick Cunnigham:

“A lot of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground, coal obviously … but you will also see oil and gas being left in the ground, that is natural,” Statoil’s CEO Eldar Saetre told Reuters in an interview. “At Statoil we are not pursuing certain types of resources, we are not exploring for heavy oil or investing in oilsands.

If heavy oil and oil sands are to be left unproduced, then a lot of oil will need to stay in the ground. According to the USGS, about 70 percent of the world’s discovered oil reserves are in the form of heavy oil and bitumen. Much of that comes from Venezuela – one of the last places in the world that an oil company wants to do business in these days – and Canada.

Last year, Statoil abandoned Canada’s oil sands, selling off its assets to Athabasca Oil Corp. But Statoil is hardly alone in the exodus. ConocoPhillips unloaded a whopping $13.3 billion of oil sands assets to Cenovus Energy earlier this year. Shell sold off $4.1 billion in oil sands assets to Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil wrote off 3.5 billion barrels of oil sands from its book in February, admitting that they were unviable in today’s market.

ConocoPhillips’ CEO said that it would no longer invest in any oil project that needs a breakeven price of $50 or higher, according to the FT.

If the Major Oil Industry believes that upwards of 70% of the oil reserves should be left in the ground, how much do we really have left to produce??  Furthermore, it was quite surprising to see that the ConocoPhillips CEO said they would no longer invest in oil projects with a breakeven above $50.  Folks, there aren"t many oil discoveries available with a price tag less than $50 a barrel.

Again, the clues are all around.  Let me repost the completely awful financial results by the second largest natural gas producer in the United States.  Chesapeake Energy produced the second highest amount of natural gas during the first nine months of 2017 at 2.9 billion cubic feet per day compared to ExxonMobil"s 3.1 billion cubic feet per day.  So, what benefit did Chesapeake receive for producing the country"s second largest amount of natural gas?  Take a look at the Q3 2017 Cash Flow Statement:

After everything was considered, Chesapeake"s operations provided $273 million in cash (shown in the highlighted yellow).  For those who are not familiar with Cash Flow Statements, we subtract capital expenditures from cash from operations to arrive at their FREE CASH FLOW.  Unfortunately for Chesapeake, they spent a staggering $1.6 billion (highlighted in blue) on drilling and completion costs (capital) to produce their natural gas and oil.  Thus, Chesapeake"s Free Cash Flow was a negative $1.3 billion.

That would have been terrible news if it wasn"t for the sale of properties of worth $1,193 million ($1.2 billion.. two lines below the highlighted blue line).  Which means, the financial wizards at Chesapeake used asset sales to help pay for their natural gas drilling capital expenditures.  How long can Chesapeake sell properties to fund their drilling costs??

Are we starting to get a PICTURE here?  Regrettably, even highly trained energy analysts do not understand that the oil and gas industry is cannibalizing itself just to stay alive.  If investors do not understand just how bad our energy situation has become, they are BLINDLY investing in the worst assets (STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE) that derive their value from the burning of ENERGY.

This is the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  It"s taking place right in front of our eyes, and virtually no one sees it.

We are going to experience a Massive Fundamental Change in the gold market because investors will finally begin to understand what a true store of wealth is versus one that is an ENERGY IOU.  Stocks, Bonds, and Real Estate get their value from burning energy IN THE FUTURE, while a gold or silver coin bought today, received its value from burning energy IN THE PAST.  That is a big difference that investors, even precious metals investors fail to realize.

Lastly, if you want to pay more for precious metals, than I suggest you don"t check out our PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page.

Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

An Autopsy of Lowest Selling Pressure EVER: S&P 500, NASDAQ 100 and DJIA Futures DataViz

E-mini S&P 500 Futures (ES)

 

Based on candlestick wick analysis and data across all three primary US futures contracts, there is less selling pressure than ever before.

Not since xyz, not since insert year here... there is less selling pressure than ever.  But everything"s awesome, right?  Just BTFD, right?

If "real technical analysis" was stranded on a desert island with only one wish: #RealTA would ask for candlesticks.  And currently there is a complete and utter lack of top wicks – more so than ever before in the history of ES, YM, and NQ futures. The relentless rally of the past 75 trading sessions has resulted in the lowest 50-day, 100-day, 200-day, and 500-day totals of bottom wicks since ES futures began trading.

So, while volatility and average true range have been missing (read as: kidnapped), so has any semblance of selling pressure; and the top wicks that indicate it.

Aside from an unexpected flash crash type scenario, futures are unlikely to plot a long-term or short-term top without indication of waning buying pressure and/or intensified selling pressure.  At some point in the central bank liquidity orgy flow induced future, all this buying pressure will exhaust itself and we will likely see evidence of an actionable top – in the form of increased frequency and size of top wicks – indicating that selling pressure has arrived (read as: awoken from a morphine overdose induced coma) and that equity "markets" are finally ready to chill.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another astonishing datavizualization of market structure and ES volume, courtesty of dataviz legend @nanexllc... starting at 11am during the 12/01 session, S&P 500 futures registered record-breaking volume by trading more contracts during that hour than at any other since at least 2005. 

 

The hour beginning at 11am last Friday had the highest $Volume traded in S&P500 futures since at least 2005. 2nd highest was flash crash. $ES_F pic.twitter.com/m9MikNo4H6

— Eric Scott Hunsader (@nanexllc) December 4, 2017

 

 

Is today’s session a bearish omen of an impending correction? 

 

While theoretically possible from a technical perspective: fishing for a top, on the same day that new highs are made, is unlikely ever wise.  Nevertheless, today’s session (12/4) gave us @Fibozachi a very interesting trio of bearish candlesticks for the S&P-500, NDX and DJIA that are each noteworthy. 

 

 

E-mini NASDAQ-100 Futures (NQ)

 

NASDAQ-100 futures (NQ) plotted a large bearish engulfing candlestick; where it’s real body engulfed that of the past two trading sessions.  Because we saw this same candlestick pattern on 11/29, today’s price action confirms that the NDX’ short-term technical outlook is becoming increasingly bearish.  If selling pressure continues, the first short-term downside support speedbump for NQ will be found at 6,200... from there, there is a strong support shelf that spans 6,150 - 6k. 

 

 

 

 

E-mini DJIA Futures (YM)

 

DJIA futures (YM) plotted a shooting star candlestick, meaning:

1. it opened higher than yesterday...


2. traded up to new highs.. and


3. then came back down to close at almost the same exact price as the open.

 

12/4’s YM session also registered as a filled white candlestick; meaning that while YM closed higher than yesterday’s close, that it also closed below yesterday’s open.

When a shooting star candle plots after a strong rally, it is often a warning sign that bullish momentum may be exhausted; the opposite is also true for hollow red candles after a sell-off.

While additional confirmation is required, this is the type of bearish candlestick pattern that may seem obvious in retrospect when looking for signs of a market top.  If selling pressure continues, short-term downside targets are 23,600 with a strong support shelf at 23,200. 

 

 

 

 

E-mini S&P 500 Futures (ES)

 

S&P 500 futures (ES) plotted a bearish engulfing candlestick pattern for the first time in 4 months.  This type of pattern - after such^ a relentless rally - has an increased chance of follow-through ... though in this instance it may just lead to a short-term sentiment reset rather than a legitimate sell-off.  If selling pressure continues, short-term downside targets span 2,550 to 2,600.

 

 

 

 

Volatility Index Futures (VX)

 

VIX futures (VX) plotted a bullish engulfing candlestick pattern for the first time since 8/08/17.  The last daily instance of this pattern triggered a surge that sent $VIX #PriceAction from 16.50 to 19.45 in just 3 sessions.

Today’s instance (12/4) provides additional technical evidence that major US equity ‘markets’ may be topping.  Should VX futures continue to rally... they will likely retest 13.50 before encountering genuinely firm resistance at 14.70 - 15.00.. with extremely strong resistance at 16.50.

 

 

 

Check out Fibozachi.com to learn about modern technical analysis and trading indicators that actually work.

Future’s have Less Selling Pressure than Ever Before… until now?

Dow Jones Megaphone pattern, bounce of new support

Below looks at the Dow Jones Industrials Index over the past 100 years on a monthly closing basis-

In the early 1980’s the Dow used old resistance to become new support at (1), where a breakout and strong rallied followed.

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

The Dow looks to be using old resistance as new support to push higher off of at (2) again.

Positive price action off new support at (2) continues. For bulls to get concerning long-term concerning message from this pattern, support would need to be taken out at (2).

 

Why you see chart pattern analysis with brief commentary:   

There is a ton of news and opinions about markets and stocks that make the decision-making process more difficult than it needs to be.    

I believe the Power of the chart Pattern provides all you need to see what is taking place in an asset and determine the action to take.  

This approach has worked well for me and our clients and I encourage you to test it for yourself. 

 

 Send an email if you would like to see sample research and take me up on a trial of our Premium or Weekly Research where I provide actionable alerts on breakouts and reversals in broad market indices, sectors, commodities, the miners and select individual stocks 

 

Email services@kimblechartingsolutions.com  

Call us Toll free 877-721-7217 international 714-941-9381 

Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM 

 

Receive daily research I post on the blog each day

 

Follow on Twitter 

 

See our latest webinar

 

 

 

 

The Difference Between GAAP And Non-GAAP Q3 EPS For The Dow Jones Was 16%

The last time we looked at the near-record difference between GAAP and non-GAAP Dow Jones earnings, we found that it had crept to a (virtually) unprecedented 25%. To be sure, that was exactly one year ago, when the economy was perceived as being in worse shape than it is now, thanks to the narrative of a "global coordinated recovery" which is really just record central bank liquidity injections, and Chinese credit creation, both of which have recently hit the brakes.

That said, going back to the question of GAAP vs non-GAAP divergence, one would assume that in light of the so-called global recovery of 2017, company earnings would be more real and not the "pro forma, one-time, non-recurring" fabrication that US corporations are so fond of. Alas, one would be wrong.

As Factset"s John Butters writes in a recent blog post, as of today, all of the companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) have reported actual EPS for Q3 2017, which brings up several questions: what percentage of these companies reported non-GAAP EPS for Q3 2017? What was the average difference and median difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for companies in the DJIA for Q3 2017? How did these differences compare to recent quarters?

Here are the answers:

For Q3 2017, 21 (or 70%) of the 30 companies in the DJIA reported non-GAAP EPS in addition to GAAP EPS for the third quarter. Of these 21 companies, 16 (or 76%) reported non-GAAP EPS that exceeded GAAP EPS. Over the past six quarters (Q1 2016 – Q2 2017) 68% of the companies in the DJIA reported non-GAAP EPS in addition to GAAP EPS and 80% of these companies reported non-GAAP EPS that exceeded GAAP EPS.

Thus, slightly more companies in the DJIA reported non-GAAP EPS in Q3 2017 relative to the average of the past six quarters, while slightly fewer companies in the DJIA reported non-GAAP EPS above GAAP EPS in Q3 2017 relative to the average over the past six quarters.

For Q3 2017, the average difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for all 21 companies was 284.1%, while the median difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for all 21 companies was 10.1%. The average difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for the DJIA was unusually large in the third quarter because of Merck. The company reported non-GAAP EPS of $1.11 and GAAP EPS of -$0.02 for the quarter. Thus, the percentage difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for Merck for Q3 exceeded 5000% (on an absolute basis).

So let"s normalize: excluding Merck, the average difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for the remaining 20 DJIA companies was 15.8%. How does that number look in context: Over the past six quarters, the average difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS for companies in the DJIA was 72.8%, while the median difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS was 13.4%.

Finally, if one takes the average of the median DJIA median differences for the past 4 quarters (LTM), one gets just over 14% (and 15.8% if "normalizing" the latest quarter"s data).

This means that while the forward non-GAAP P/E multiple may be 18x based on a 33.4 (non-GAAP) S&P EPS, if one assumes that roughly 14% of the latest earnings, and those projected for the next 5 quarters, are "fluff" then applying a 14% haircut to the forward consensus EPS of 143... 

... which amounts to 123 in EPS for the S&P500 - then the market"s forward GAAP PE multiple is 21x. With the exception of the pre-dot com burst, the market"s forward P/E multiple has never been that high.