The Dumbest Dumb Money Finally Gets Suckered In

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

Corporate share repurchases have turned out to be a great mechanism for converting Federal Reserve easing into higher consumer spending. Just allow public companies to borrow really cheaply and one of the things they do with the resulting found money is repurchase their stock. This pushes up equity prices, making investors feel richer and more willing to splurge on the kinds of frivolous stuff (new cars, big houses, extravagant vacations) that produce rising GDP numbers.

For politicians and their bureaucrats this is a win-win. But for the rest of us it’s not, since the debts corporations take on to buy their own stock at market peaks tend to hobble them going forward, leading eventually to bigger share price declines than would otherwise be the case.

The ultimate loser? The only people traditionally willing to buy in after corporations are finished overpaying for their stock: Retail investors, of course.

Let’s see how it’s playing out this time.

First, corporations spent several years elevating stock prices with share repurchases. Note the near perfect correlation between the two lines:

Now they’re scaling back their purchases:

Saying Bye to Buybacks

(Wall Street Journal) – Companies in the S&P 500 are on pace to spend the least on buybacks since 2012

 

Large companies are repurchasing their shares at the slowest pace in five years, as record U.S. stock indexes and an expanding economy propel more money out of flush corporate coffers into capital spending and mergers.

 

Companies in the S&P 500 are on pace to spend $500 billion this year on share buybacks, or about $125 billion a quarter, according to data from INTL FCStone. That is the least since 2012 and down from a quarterly average of $142 billion between 2014 and 2016.

 

Buyback activity among top-rated nonfinancial debt issuers, many of which have regularly borrowed money to finance share repurchases, declined for the third straight quarter in the July-to-September period, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Meanwhile, mergers and acquisitions among that group of companies had their biggest quarter of the year, analysts at the bank said.

 

Factors including high stock price, historically high share valuations and uncertainty over the future shape of the tax code mean that “companies may be less likely to favor buybacks over other uses of cash in 2018,” analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a report this week.

And – here’s the really sad part – individual investors are taking up the slack:

The emboldened retail investor may be a new catalyst to help take stocks higher — for now.

(CNBC) – “The level of enthusiasm about the market … has been building. We’re seeing more individuals come in,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab.

 

Sonders said she’s anecdotally seeing signs of more individuals putting money to work in the stock market in the last several months, after years of skepticism and concerns about “every variety of doom and gloom.”

 

She says she is getting fewer investors asking about bubbles or about what’s the next shoe to drop.

 

“I think it’s finally starting to suck people in … emotionally, and actually it’s hard to judge why now all of a sudden, but maybe it’s because of how persistent the move has been with so little volatility on the upside and on the downside,” Sonders said. “This year has been different. This kind of year pulls people in.”

 

Retail brokers have been reporting an influx of accounts. Charles Schwab, in its earnings release, said clients opened more than 100,000 new brokerage accounts a month in the third quarter, making for a record-breaking 10-month streak of new accounts topping 100,000. Its rival, TD Ameritrade, said on its earnings call last month that new accounts, asset inflows and other indicators are at the highest since the financial crisis.

What’s frustrating about this is the repeating pattern of government creating conditions in which smart money (that is, the guys who donate big to political campaigns) is allowed to get in early, make huge profits, and then hand the bag to regular people who aren’t connected or sophisticated enough to see what’s happening. The rich, who are or will soon be shorting the hell out of this market, get richer and the rest see their hopes for a decent (or any) retirement dashed one more time.

And the political class wonders why voters don’t like them anymore.

More Evidence BoJ Desperate To Steepen Yield Curve

Two days ago, we highlighted how Bank of Japan officials have been briefing Reuters about reducing its monetary stimulus earlier than markets had been expecting – around 1Q 2018 rather than later in the year. In particular, the yield curve control (YCC) is likely to be eased from the current target of zero percent for 10-year JGB yields. It seems the BoJ became frustrated that markets had failed to respond to his hints about the “reversal rate”, i.e. that central banks can lower rates too far and damage financial institutions and the provision of credit in the economy. The one (former) BoJ official who was prepared to go on the record explained.

“Reversal rate is a pretty shocking word to come out of the mouth of a BOJ governor. It’s unthinkable the BOJ would insert it in Kuroda’s speech without any policy intention,” said Takahide Kiuchi, who was a BOJ board member until July.

 

The BOJ may allow long-term rates to rise more by shifting its long-term rate target to five-year yields from 10-year yields around the first quarter of next year, Kiuchi said. “The BOJ could put a positive spin on the move by saying it can more effectively reflate growth by keeping short-term borrowing costs low while allowing longer yields to rise.”

We might assume that the BoJ is becoming obsessed with steepening the yield curve and we got confirmation of this overnight. A story which flashed up on Bloomberg about the BoJ tapering bond purchases at the super long end.

BOJ Bond Cut Shows Desire to Steepen Yield Curve: Merrill Lynch

 

Bank of Japan’s slight cut in buying of bonds maturing in more than 25 years suggests its desire to steepen the yield curve, says Shuichi Obsaki, chief rates strategist for Japan at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

 

Yield curve has been flattening of late and the BOJ is probably sending a message that it wants the super-long yield curve to steepen.

In terms of the mechanics, the BoJ today cut its purchases of bonds maturing in more than 25 years to 90 billion Yen from 100 billion yen at the previous offer on 17 November 2017. This was the first cut since March. JGB yields rose on the news in Friday trading, as Bloomberg reports.

JGB yields rose across the curve after the BOJ trimmed outright debt purchase in the super long sector.

 

BOJ reduced purchases of bonds with maturity of more than 25 years by 10b yen to 90b yen; it was the bank’s first cut in the sector since March.

 

Purchase volume for the 10-to-25-year zone was unchanged at 200b

 

JGB futures closed regular day down 0.13 at 151.02; key futures suffered the biggest intraday loss since Oct. 2, losing as much as 0.21

 

10-year cash bond yield rises 0.5bp to 0.025%; 20-year yield gains 1bp to 0.57%; 30-year climbs 2.5bps to 0.830%

 

Falls in JGB futures were exaggerated by sharp rise on Wednesday

It appears that the BoJ had become panicked by the yield curve flattening after reports that the government might reduce the issuance of super-long bonds in the next fiscal year, i.e. to March 2019. On Wednesday, there was a meeting between officials from Japan’s Ministry of Finance and primary dealers to discuss the plans for issuance in the next fiscal year.

While inflation is remains far below its 2% target, the BoJ is being forced into a policy reversal due to the damage its NIRP/ZIRP policy is doing to the financial sector. However, it’s portraying its defeat as  a victory via the supposed reflationary signalling of steepening yield curve. It’s utter nonsense and a shameful reflection on the depths which central bankers will stoop to.

The Fed Balance Sheet Unwind Myth

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Since the beginning of the year, the Federal Reserve has been heavily discussing, warning rather, they were going to begin to “unwind” their gargantuan balance sheet. As Michael Lebowitz recently penned in his subscription-only article “Draining The Punchbowl:”

“Since QE was first introduced, the S&P 500 has gained 1,546 points. All but 355 points were achieved during periods of QE. Of those remaining 355 points, over 80% occurred after Trump’s victory.”

That is a pretty amazing set of stats. I have previously noted the high correlation of the financial markets relative to the ongoing liquidity operations of the Federal Reserve. I have updated that analysis to show the reduction in the balance according to the Fed’s proposed schedule.

While the market stumbled following the end of QE in the United States, global QE, as shown in the charts of the major global Central Banks picked up the slack.

But now, the ECB has already begun discussing their plans to begin cutting the amount of their QE program by half in the coming year.

“European Central Bank officials are considering cutting their monthly bond buying by at least half starting in January and keeping their program active for at least nine months, according to officials familiar with the debate.

 

Reducing quantitative easing to 30 billion euros ($36 billion) a month from the current pace of 60 billion euros is a feasible option, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private. That reduced flow would match existing predictions from economists at institutions including ABN Amro Bank NV and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.”

The hope, of course, by Central Bank officials is that global economies are now humming along at a pace strong enough to withstand the reduction of “emergency measures.” Of course, the real question is whether the Central Bank’s “measures” of economic strength are accurate. While there are certainly indicators such as GDP growth, production, and employment measures which suggests that global economies are indeed on a cyclical upswing, there are also numerous measures which suggest the opposite.

As I stated previously,

“The Fed understands that economic cycles do not last forever, and we are closer to the next recession than not. While raising rates will accelerate a potential recession and a significant market correction, from the Fed’s perspective it might be the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Being caught near the ‘zero bound’ at the onset of a recession leaves few options for the Federal Reserve to stabilize an economic decline.”

With the Fed trying to raise interest rates, and reduce the balance sheet simultaneously, the “tightening of monetary policy” is a drag on economic growth and ultimately the stock market. But as I stated above, while the Fed is currently “discussing” the reduction of their balance sheet beginning in October, they actually haven’t. In fact, just last week the Fed increased their balance sheet by over $13.5 billion dollars. No wonder the stock market shot higher. 

Since these balance sheet expansions generally have occurred at points where asset prices were at risk due to some “event,” the latest expansion occurred during the “tax cut hope” driven rise. The raises the potential question of:

“What does the Fed know that we don’t.” 

Wolf Richter recently proposed 5-possible conclusions to extract from the Fed’s actions:

1. The whole QE-unwind announcement was a hoax to test how stupid everyone is. But I doubt this.


2. The people running the OMO are on vacation and have been replaced by algos or interns, and they just keep doing what the folks now on vacation have been doing for years. I doubt this too.


3. The FOMC told the public what it wants to have done but forgot to tell its own people at the Trading Desk. I doubt that too.


4. There is willfulness in it – a sign that they’re not ready, or that they want to give the markets more time to get used to the idea of it, etc. And this could be the case.


5. They’re seeing something that worries them, and they’re holding off for now to get a clearer picture. But I doubt this because their decision to commence the QE-unwind on October 1 was unanimous, and since then nothing of enough enormity has changed.

While Wolf doubts the 5th point. I don’t as much. The reason I say that is because the yield curve seems to be sniffing out something.

Given current market valuations, exceedingly low yields on junk bonds globally, complacency elevated along with very high levels of both bullish sentiment and heavy investor equity allocations, the risk of a “policy related” error is extremely high.

The “Bond Bull” Ain’t Dead…It’s Just Resting

The recent “pop” in rates, after declining to near 2% this summer, has once again brought calls for the end of the “bond bull.” These calls have been, for the last 4-years, prime buying opportunities to add bond exposure to portfolios. The recent rise in rates came with the election of President Trump and hopes for “tax cuts and reforms.” Theoretically, these policies will boost economic growth and inflation as seen during the Reagan era leading to higher rates for bonds. However, as discussed previously, given the completely inverted state of economic dynamics, there is a high probability these reforms will fail to create the economic growth boost currently hoped for. (That is even if they come to fruition.)

But the Fed’s balance sheet reduction is also suggestive of lower, not higher, interest rates. In the past, despite what the Fed suggested would happen, rates rose during their QE programs as money rotated out of the “safety of bonds” back into equities. When those programs ended, rates fell. Rates also fell to lows after the end of QE, and despite the “Trump Bump” since the election, the further reduction of liquidity, and potential onset of a recession in the months ahead, will likely lead to a significant push lower as money rotates from “risk” back to the “safety” of U.S. Treasuries.

As I laid out previously:

“There is an assumption that because interest rates are low, that the bond bull market has come to its inevitable conclusion. The problem with this assumption is three-fold:

 

1. All interest rates are relative. With more than $10-Trillion in debt globally sporting negative interest rates, the assumption that rates in the U.S. are about to spike higher is likely wrong. Higher yields in U.S. debt attracts flows of capital from countries with negative yields which push rates lower in the U.S. Given the current push by Central Banks globally to suppress interest rates to keep nascent economic growth going, an eventual zero-yield on U.S. debt is not unrealistic.


2. The coming budget deficit balloon. Given the lack of fiscal policy controls in Washington, and promises of continued largesse in the future, the budget deficit is set to swell back to $1 Trillion or more in the coming years. This will require more government bond issuance to fund future expenditures which will be magnified during the next recessionary spat as tax revenue falls.


3. Central Banks will continue to be a buyer of bonds to maintain the current status quo, but will become more aggressive buyers during the next recession. The next QE program by the Fed to offset the next economic recession will likely be $2-4 Trillion which will push the 10-year yield towards zero.”

 

In this past weekend’s missive “Yellen Speaks Japanese” and yesterday’s post “Debt, Deficits & Economic Warnings” I laid out the data constructs behind the points above.

With Yellen pushing the idea of more government spending, the budget deficit already expanding and economic growth running well below expectations, the demand for bonds will continue to grow. However, from a technical perspective, the trend of interest rates already suggest a rate of zero during the next economic recession.”

Here is the point, while the punditry continues to push a narrative that “stocks are the only game in town,” this will likely turn out to be poor advice. But such is the nature of a media-driven analysis with a lack of historical experience or perspective.

From many perspectives, the real risk of the heavy equity exposure in portfolios is outweighed by the potential for further reward. The realization of “risk,” when it occurs, will lead to a rapid unwinding of the markets pushing volatility higher and bond yields lower. This is why I continue to acquire bonds on rallies in the markets, which suppresses bond prices, to increase portfolio income and hedge against a future market dislocation.

In other words, I get paid to hedge risk, lower portfolio volatility and protect capital. Bonds aren’t dead, in fact, they are likely going to be your best investment in the not too distant future.

In the short-term, the market could surely rise further, especially if the Fed continues reinvesting the proceeds from their balance sheet. This is a point I will not argue as investors are historically prone to chase returns until the very end. But over the intermediate to longer-term time frame, the consequences are entirely negative.

As my mom used to say:

“It’s all fun and games until someone gets their eye put out.”

Uber Shareholder Drops Lawsuit Against Kalanick, Clearing Way For Softbank Investment

Tuesday’s meeting of the Uber Inc. board – the first following Kalanick’s unilateral decision to appoint former Xerox Corp. Chairwoman and CEO Ursula Burns and former Merrill Lynch Chairman and CEO John Thain – appears to have been a productive one.

Reuters is reporting that the board voted to move ahead with two issues, a change in governance rules, and an investment by Japan’s Softbank Group, which it was reported last month has been in talks to invest as much as $10 billion in the cash-burning ride-share giant.

To anyone who hasn’t been following the ongoing boardroom struggle between former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who was ousted after an investor revolt in June, and Benchmark Capital, these might seem like routine housekeeping matters.  

But in reality, they’re signs that two warring factions have agreed to put aside their differences - for now, at least - for the good of the company (not to mention their bank accounts). Benchmark has been trying to change the board"s rules to try and limit Kalanick"s power with the ultimate goal of ensuring he never returns as CEO. But today, Kalanick assented to the governance changes, albiet in a watered-down form. Meanwhile, Kalanick also gave his blessing to the Softbank deal, letting go of his reservations despite reports that Softbank had struck an agreement with Benchmark to do everything in its power to oppose Kalanick’s return as CEO as a condition of its investment, which should result in the Japanese company gaining control over at least one board seat.

Of course, by allowing both of these proposals to proceed, Kalanick is making some major concessions. What is he getting in return?

A lot, it turns out. In a separate report, Reuters said that Benchmark has agreed to drop its lawsuit alleging that Kalanick defrauded Uber’s investors. The lawsuit is related to how Kalanick managed to assert control over the two board seats to which he recently appointed Thain and Burns.

That’s a major win for Kalanick. And that"s not all. As Axios later clarified, the governance changes approved by the board will limit his power, but wouldn"t preclude the possibility of him ever returning to the helm the company.

But perhaps the most important outcome of this grand bargain is that it clears the path toward an IPO. As Axios noted, it’s the type of deal that leaves everybody feeling like a winner.

Here’s more on the governance proposal, courtesy of Axios:

What passed?

• Super-voting rights are gone, which means shareholders are all "one share, one vote." Note that only early employees actually have shares, whereas over 90% have restricted stock units (which don"t have any voting rights).


• The board will be expanded significantly, which means Kalanick would need support of a majority of independent directors to ever regain the CEO spot or be named chairman.


• If Uber doesn"t go public by two years from now, share transfer restrictions are lifted.

What didn"t pass:

• Eliminating any path to the CEO or chairman seat for Kalanick, although it"s now a much higher hurdle.

To be sure, just because Kalanick and Benchmark have put aside their differences (for now, at least) in the interest of guiding the company toward its inevitable public offering (an eventuality that holds substantial rewards for all parties involved) – doesn’t mean their plan will succeed. As we learned back in April, Uber is burning through an embarrassing amount of cash. And while an offering appears likely within the next 18 months, it could still be derailed by souring public sentiment, or the company’s disastrous finances.

In a statement addressing the meeting, Kalanick praised the board’s decisions, insisting that they were made in the best interest of the company.

travis kalanick statement pic.twitter.com/uXzLDYX0uJ

— ?_? (@MikeIsaac) October 3, 2017

And Uber"s statement, courtesy of Axios:

"Today, after welcoming its new directors Ursula Burns and John Thain, the Board voted unanimously to move forward with the proposed investment by SoftBank and with governance changes that would strengthen its independence and ensure equality among all shareholders.

SoftBank"s interest is an incredible vote of confidence in Uber"s business and long-term potential, and we look forward to finalizing the investment in the coming weeks."

* * *

One person familiar with the matter said that a group of investors led by SoftBank will be allowed to buy $1 billion to $1.25 billion of new Uber shares at a company valuation of $69 billion and 14% and 17% of the company"s stock from current investors at a discounted valuation.

Earlier media reports suggested Softbank would pay $1 billion at the $69 billion valuation, and $9 billion at a valuation closer to $50 billion.

However, while the prospects for the deal look promising, there’s still time for it to fall apart. If it does, how long before Kalanick’s relationship with Benchmark once again devolves into acrimony?

"Dr.Copper"'s Contango Crushes Economic Hype

We warned two weeks ago that China"s "Bronze Swan" was looming as the crackdown on leverage in the system by Chinese authorities may be forcing unwinds of the CCFDs - thus putting upward pressure on Copper futures (unwinding short positions) and selling physical copper (which would mean procuring the physical metal before passing it on). Those effects were exactly what we had been seeing in the market until the end of August.

And now, it appears, as StockBoardAsset.com notes, exhaustion has started to set in across industry metals...

Barclays has also called the copper rally overhyped, while Bank of America Merrill Lynch said it’s the metal most at risk of a reversal,with the optimism of investors in financial futures disconnected from slow conditions in the physical market.

“When you look at the state of the refined copper market, you certainly question why prices have risen so significantly,” Snowdon said by phone from London.

And finally, bear in mind that the lagged response to China"s credit impulse is about to hit base metals... The rise and fall in China"s credit impulse that has been so highly correlated (on a lagged basis) with copper for the last eight years...

And now, as Frik Els of Mining.com explains, Copper futures trading on the Comex market in New York suffered another sharp decline on Wednesday as analysts warn of a likely correction following weeks of speculative buying.

In massive volumes of 2.7 billion pounds in morning trade alone copper for delivery in December slumped to a low of 2.9710 a pound ($6,550 per tonne), down more than 2% from Tuesday’s close to a three-week low.

A week ago copper hit an intra-day high just shy of $3.18 a pound (more than $7,000 a tonne), the highest since September 2014. But disappointment about imports by China,  responsible for some 46% of global consumption of the metal, and receding supply worries saw the rally come to a screeching halt.

The prospect of a weakening renminbi also emerged as factor for the pullback after Chinese policymakers this week relaxed rules to curb speculation against the yuan which had been in place for nearly two years.

A correction on copper markets may also have been overdue as speculative interest have been running ahead of industry fundamentals. Hedge funds built successive record net long positions – bets on rising prices – in recent weeks which according to the latest report totalled the equivalent of more than $9 billion at today’s prices.

Reports at the end of July that China is planning to ban the importation of scrap copper by the end of next year, sparked the rally from copper’s summer lows, but caught many in the industry by surprise.

Investment banks and institutions are now catching up and according to the September survey by FocusEconomics released yesterday eight of the 24 analysts polled upgraded their fourth quarter forecasts compared to projections made the month before.

While no-one downgraded the outlook for copper, consensus forecasts remain well below ruling prices however.

Analysts project that prices will average $5,870 per tonne in Q4 2017 and $5,844 per tonne in Q4 2018. The lowest forecast for Q4 2017 is $4,899 per tonne, while the maximum forecast is $6,674 per tonne. Among the pessimists. Barclays, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and Macquarie all saw a prices average more than 15% below today’s price going into 2018.

The price forecasts for Q4 2017 were raised for nine metals and minerals, including aluminium, lead and iron ore. Tin was the only exception with economics lowering their price expectations for the rest of the year.

*  *  *

And finally, as Bloomberg details, here’s some more grist for the doubters who scoffed at copper’s rally to a three-year high earlier this month.

The metal for immediate delivery on the London Metal Exchange cost $40.75 less than benchmark three-month futures on Tuesday, the biggest discount since 2009.

That market structure, known ascontango, shows “there’s no part of the world where copper is really scarce,” said Rene van der Kam, Singapore-based managing director of trader Viant Commodities Pte Ltd. He says to expect more losses after a pullback in prices this week.

It appears "Dr.Copper" is about to be relegated to "ignore" status once again.

And why your average joe American should care... the Copper/Gold Ratio is misfiring and more likely to revert back to UST10Y levels. The correlation broke in late August.

Did China's Bronze Swan Just Arrive? Copper Inventories Crash Most In History

Buyers withdrew more copper from the London Metal Exchange’s global warehouse network on Wednesday than at any time since daily records began in 1996, extending a 19-day drop.

As Bloomberg notes, while the net decline in percentage terms was also the biggest since the height of China’s raw-materials boom in 2006, some have warned against reading such moves as an end to a years-long supply glut. A tug of war between financial traders with opposing views of the market has led to sharp swings in metal moving in and out of storage in the past year.

However, stockpiles also slumped 8.2% on the Shanghai Futures Exchange, which is notable because last year we saw the London and Shanghai inventories see-sawing (up in London, down in Shanghai, and vice versa)...

A question that emerged is what China is spending all this newly created money on. One answer emerged overnight when Bloomberg reported that after tumbling in the first half of 2015, copper inventories at the Shanghai Futures Exchange had been steadily rising, and in the most recent week soared by 11% to an all time high of 305,106 tons.

At the same time reserves at the London Metals Exchange declined for 11 days to the lowest level in more than a year, in other words China is shifting idle inventory from Point A to Point B.

But, this most recent withdrawal surge (the largest in history) suggests a sudden failure of the long-running commodity "collateralization" transaction - or CCFD - regime implemented in China years ago, as described in this post and summarized in the chart below...

Copper, as China pundits may know, is the key shadow interest rate arbitrage tool, through the use of financing deals that use commodities with high value-to-density ratios such as gold, copper, nickel, which in turn are used as collateral against which USD-denominated China-domestic Letters of Credit are pleged, in what can often result in a seemingly infinite rehypothecation loop (see explanation below) between related onshore and offshore entities, allowing loop participants to pick up virtually risk-free arbitrage (i.e., profits), which however boosts China"s FX lending and leads to upward pressure on the CNY.

And sure enough, we have seen USDCNY surging in recent months... (even if the RMB basket against global currencies has stabilized)

An example of a typical, simplified, CCFD

In this section we present an example of how a typical Chinese Copper Financing Deal (CCFD) works, and then discuss how the various parties involved are affected if the deals are forced to unwind. Exhibit 3 is a ‘simplified’ example of a CCFD, including specific reference to how the process places upward pressure on the RMB/USD. We believe this is the predominant structure of CCFDs, with other forms of Chinese copper financing deals much less profitable and likely only a small proportion of total deal volumes.

To summarize, Goldman notes that these shadow banking vehicles - CCFDs - involve a long copper physical positions and a short futures position on the LME.

And so, the current crackdown on leverage in the system by Chinese authorities may be forcing unwinds of the CCFDs - thus putting upward pressure on Copper futures (unwinding short positions) and selling physical copper (which would mean procuring the physical metal before passing it on). These are exactly what we are seeing in the market currently.

So is this the bronze swan?

*  *  *

Barclays has also called the copper rally overhyped, while Bank of America Merrill Lynch said it’s the metal most at risk of a reversal, with the optimism of investors in financial futures disconnected from slow conditions in the physical market.

“When you look at the state of the refined copper market, you certainly question why prices have risen so significantly,” Snowdon said by phone from London.

And finally, bear in mind that the lagged response to China"s credit impulse is about to hit base metals...The rise and fall in China"s credit impulse that has been so highly correlated (on a lagged basis) with copper for the last eight years...

However, as one analyst noted,

“Getting short in any base metal is risky right now when you have this broad positive macro theme and increasing investor participation, particularly in China’s onshore market."

“This is probably one to stand back from and wait for Chinese macro sentiment to turn.”

And finally, bringing the narrative back to American shores, DoubleLine"s Jeff Gundlach tweeted recently about the "Copper/Gold ratio soaring to the high of the year!"...

Adding

"Not good news for the "1.50% 10 year" crowd. Neither is 10 year Bund holding above 50 bp."

If China"s legged credit impulse is about to have its peak effect on Copper (as we showed above) then perhaps, just perhaps, the real pain trade (given the surging shorts in T-Bonds), is a 1.50% 10Y yield after all... driven by a plunge in copper prices.

Carmageddon Continues - Dealers "Wildly Overweight" SUVs As Sales Slow

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The auto boom, one of the key components propping up consumer spending, has come to an end.

Dealers are wildly overweight SUVs just as the market turned.

As auto-industry growth stalls and family sedans go the way of the flip phone, one silver lining had been the trusty “crossover” SUV. Sales in the category boomed amid lower gasoline prices and higher demand for spacious wagons with all-wheel drive.

But more clouds seem to be gathering as the summer car-selling season comes to an end. Incentives on SUVs are skyrocketing amid rising inventories, a trend that promises to dent the fat profits the segment has long returned.

Auto makers report sales on Friday, and August volume is expected to rise 2% compared with the same month in 2016, but only because dealers have an extra selling day this year. On an adjusted basis, the rate of retail sales—stripping out deliveries to fleet buyers—will hit the lowest point of 2017, according to J.D. Power, despite hefty sales incentives and new model offerings.

The U.S. auto market’s slowdown isn’t a new story, as analysts widely expected a seven-year growth streak to end and for sales to plateau at roughly 17 million a year for the foreseeable future. Red flags for the crossover market, however, represent a whole new set of headaches, particularly for companies like General Motors Co.

“The industry is wildly overweight on crossovers,” John Murphy, an auto analyst for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a recent presentation. The number of crossover models sold in U.S. dealerships is expected to rise to 110 nameplates by late 2020, up from 78 today, he estimated.

Auto makers like GM—long dominant in the SUV market—have relied on bigger or heavier vehicles with higher price tags to drive profits, and offset the losses that result from sales of family sedans or compact cars. But in the first half of 2017, incentives for SUVs shot up 33%, according to research website Edmunds.com, with the average discount or rebate in the segment reaching $3,200.

Ford Motor Co. is currently offering a $3,500 cash rebate on the Ford Escape, along with 0% financing for 72 months. A Ford spokesman said the SUV market is “increasingly competitive,” noting average transaction prices last month fell $400 compared to a year earlier.

Economists Expect Plateau

At every peak, economists expect a “plateau”, be it the stock market, the housing market, or cars.

Reasons to Expect a Crash

• Self-driving features are on the way and many people will wait for them


• Lots of retiring boomers purchased their last car


• Anyone who bought with long-term financing in the past few years is deeply underwater, making trade-ins difficult


• Auto sales are increasingly subprime


• After years of record sales, who needs a newer car away?

Vehicles account for 20% of retail spending. A crash or even a significant slowdown will impact retail sales and thus GDP.

School Board Removes "Lynch" From The Name Of Three Schools Because It Was Deemed Offensive

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

Every time that the absurdity of political correctness reaches a new peak in our culture, it’s easy to assume that it can’t get any worse.

But if we’ve learned anything over the past few years, it’s that it can always get worse.

For people who have their entire identity wrapped up in being oppressed and downtrodden, the limit to what they can be offended by is absolutely bottomless. Which is why it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a school board in Oregon recently voted to remove the name “Lynch” from several elementary schools.

You can probably guess why.

Lynch Meadows Elementary, Lynch Woods Elementary and Lynch View Elementary were all named after a local family who donated land to the school district in the late 1800s.

 

In recent years, school officials say they have received complaints from people who are concerned about the name’s connotation with lynching.

 

‘There were an increasing amount of questions and some complaints from families of color around the name,’ Centennial School District Superintendent Paul Coakley, who is black, told the Oregonian.

 

‘Our diversity is increasing every year, with families coming in from Northeast Portland and out of state, so [the names] needed to be looked at,’ he added.

The fact that “Lynch” is an actual surname held by perhaps tens of thousands of people and has been around for hundreds of years, was of no consequence to the perpetually offended people who wanted these schools to change their names.

“I don’t think any of you have ever seen a picture where one of your decedents was hanging from a tree,” said one man who testified in favor of the name change.

“I know the majority of you guys are white and it’s hard to know how that word could have an effect but it does,” added a young student who testified. “If a simple name change could make students feel safe, then why are we holding back?”

Actually, there is a very good and practical reason why these school names shouldn’t be changed. We have to ask ourselves, where does this end?

Perhaps any “people of color” who happen to work for Merrill Lynch should be outraged.

Maybe director David Lynch should have his name scrubbed from his films.

Maybe the residents of Lynch Town Kentucky, as well as 10 other cities across the country that happened to be named “Lynchburg” should vote to change the names of their communities.

Maybe this surname should be banned entirely. After all, we can’t let these people be a walking reminder of a terrible crime that they had nothing to do with, now can we?

In case you’ve ever wondered why the culture of political correctness is always capable of reaching new levels of madness, now you know.

Once you permit one absurdity, every absurdity is on the table.

The Only Thing That Matters For Bond Traders, In One Chart

Inflation outlook, rate differentials, projected growth, positioning, quants... there are countless explanations provided daily to explain why bonds trade the way they do. And yet, as Bank of America shows today, as of this moment just over 50% of the global bond market returns can be explained with just one thing: central bank balance sheet changes.

BofA explains:

Central bank assets, most of which are held in fixed income assets, are now equivalent to 31% of the $49tn fixed income universe tracked by the BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fixed Income Markets Index (GFIM); and the percentage of global bond market monthly returns explained by the monthly change in central bank balance sheets has dramatically increased in recent years.

And with more than half of bond returns now driven by central banks, BofA goes so far as to say that "Central banks have become the bond market."

BOfA"s evidence:

Note how in the past year, the months in which central bank asset purchases have either declined or been very small have coincided with months of weak performance from global bonds (Table 2). This was particularly the case in the fourth quarter of last year and a similar pattern is emerging this summer.

* * *

Of course, this is a problem because with central bank balance sheet projected to decline for the foreseeable future as Citi showed last month, at least until global stocks tumble and/or the next recession hits, it would suggest that yields have just one direction to go.

Millennials Choose To Spend Money On Travel, Dining, And Fitness Than Save For Retirement: Survey

Submitted by Nicholas Colas of Convergex

Millennials save more of their income than older generations. Don’t believe it? Look at a recent survey by Merrill Edge, which found millennials say they save 36% more than their general population counterparts report as over a third stash away more than 20% of their salary per year.

As for what they’re saving for, that’s another story. Whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for a desired lifestyle rather than exiting the workforce. Millennials would rather spend money on travel, dining, and fitness than save for their financial future. They are also more focused on certain milestones like landing their dream job or traveling the world, and are less worried about getting married or having kids. Bottom line, millennials are saving, just for shorter-term goals as compared to their parents.

Where were you thirty years ago? My parents and many of our readers likely remember the stock market’s ascension to record highs before the sudden crash of 1987. A few decades later the capital market is back to flirting with another peak, but the loss-averse nature of people leaves past financial crises clearly imprinted into memory.

The Atlantic put together 41 pictures for a glimpse into 1987 that captured a wide variety of figures and events during that year. One such portrait included passengers on the F train in New York reading the newspaper after “Black Monday.” The front cover of the New York Post read “Wall St. Bloodbath” in huge bold letters and “Panic selling sweeps market: P.5” at the bottom of the page. Six clocks sat between the two texts, reflecting the event’s global reach.

Here are some other descriptions of pictures from that time to highlight just how different our world is three decades on:

• Now-President-but-then-private-citizen Donald Trump greets Liza Minelli backstage at Carnegie Hall, along with his then wife Ivana Trump, and Henry and Nancy Kissinger. Fast forward 30 years (almost to the month) and likely much to his disbelief at that time he’s currently representing the free world by traveling abroad and meeting with foreign leaders. Far cry from real estate deals, that.


• The vice president of marketing for Compaq Computer Corporation shows off the new Compaq Portable III at the Mark Hellinger Theater in New York, which weighs just 18 pounds so that it’s easy (!) to carry. Now not only our computer but phone capabilities rest in just one device and fit right in our pockets, with the iPhone 7 weighing as light as between 5 to 7 ounces.


• Then First Lady Nancy Reagan watches an anti-drug musical, Just Say No, at a high school in Alexandria, Virginia. Tough to imagine now about two-thirds of Americans live in a state where some form of marijuana is legal. The momentum continues in that direction as well, with 60% of Americans favoring legalization of the drug according to a 2016 Gallup poll.


• About 200,000 people (according to US Park Police estimates) rally on the National Mall in support of gays and lesbians. Fast forward and we now have marriage equality.


• Bernie Sanders, then Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, records songs and a conversation about his philosophy on tape: “Sanders feels music is a powerful way to communicate with the masses.” Little did people see just how much he would connect with the masses this past presidential election, particularly among the politically hard to reach millennial cohort.


• For more photographs down memory lane, here’s a link to the article with everyone from David Bowie and Princess Diana to Pee-wee Herman and Howard Stern:

Thirty years ago, baby boomers were in their twenties and up, and now their kids’ ages span from nearly twenty to their mid-thirties. As those old photographs show, however, millennials’ experience in their twenties and thirties vastly differs from their parents socially, culturally, and economically. We therefore have different values and goals, which even extends to our financial lives.

A recent survey of over 1,000 Americans conducted from March 21st to April 5th by Merrill Edge showed a stark generational divide about different groups’ life priorities. Some of these findings may come as a surprise. Here are the results:

• Top life priorities: “millennials are the first generation to plan long-term for financial freedom instead of retirement.” Most (63%) millennials are “looking to save a set amount of money or income necessary to enjoy their desired lifestyle, compared to the majority (55%) of Gen Xers and baby boomers who are saving so they can leave the workforce.” Millennials are “significantly more likely than their older counterparts to focus on personal milestones of working at their dream job (42%, compared to 23%) and traveling the world (37%, compared to 21%).”
  
  • Additionally, “today’s 18- to 34-year-olds are also far less likely to emphasize the traditional family milestones of getting married (43%, compared to 51%) and being a parent (36%, compared to 59%).”
  
  


• Spending patterns: most millennials are more likely to spend money on “travel (81%), dining (65%) and fitness (55%) than save for their financial future.” The report attributes this to FOMO, or the “fear of missing out”.


• Savings: millennials “say they save 36% more than their generational counterparts, with more than one-third (36%) setting aside more than 20% of their salary per year.” As for overall respondents, 42% are saving less than 10% of their salary, while 7% don’t save anything.
  
  • Ironic given that Americans think the “Greatest Generation (54%) does a ‘very good’ job of saving, followed by baby boomers (45%), Gen Xers (19%) and millennials (8%).” In fact, just 15% of millennials think of themselves as good savers. So even though 45% of millennials consult their parents “always” or “often” for financial advice and think they’re better savers, it’s the opposite.
  
  


• Consequently, Americans aren’t saving enough and feel unprepared for uncertain scenarios. Most Americans “are not very confident they would be able to achieve their financial goals if they were to: get a divorce (71%), have children (64%), live to 100 years old (62%) or outlive their significant other (48%).” The problem, they are not “financially planning for these scenarios either, with only 5% saving for the possibility of divorce and 23% for the possibility of children.”
  
  • Therefore, 59% of respondents think Americans should be required to save for their own retirement, and 48% believe financial education should be required.
  
  


• Technology: Two in five Americans report “using an online or mobile portal to manage their investments.” Respondents also say using these platforms “has a positive impact that makes users feel more knowledgeable (51%), empowered (31%) and savvy (14%).” Going forward over the next decade, Americans “believe emerging technologies will allow more people to invest (41%)” and that a “majority of investments will become automated (34%), the 401(k) account will no longer be the ‘gold standard’ (29%), and the market will be dominated by women (13%).”


• As for robo advisors, one in eight (13%) Americans currently use one or would consider it in the next year. Zeroing in on millennials, however, brings this figure up to 22%.


• Link to the full report.

The upshot: whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for their desired lifestyle rather than seeking to exit the workforce. Americans may view older generations as better savers, but millennials actually take the cake there. They just have different priorities that are shorter-term than their parents. Of course this could pose risks for millennials when they finally grow to their parents’ age and beyond, but this survey shows a clear way for financial professionals to best reach them: on mobile where they already give most of their attention, and addressing their unique take on life goals.

Visualizing The Expanding Universe Of Cryptocurrencies

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency, and its meteoric rise has made it a mainstay of conversation for investors, media, and technologists alike.

In fact, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins details, the innovation of the blockchain is changing entire markets, while causing ripples with central banks and the financial industry. At time of publication, the bitcoin price now hovers near US$2,200, a massive increase from this time last year.

But the true impact of Bitcoin is actually far more reaching than this – it’s actually helped to birth new markets for over 800 other cryptocurrencies and assets that are available for online trading. And while the market for bitcoins is worth nearly $40 billion itself, the rest of these cryptocurrencies are actually worth even more in combination.

THE ALTCOIN UNIVERSE

For the first time since Bitcoin was founded, it now makes up the minority of the entire cryptocurrency market at about 47.9% of all coins and assets.

So what are the other altcoins that make up the rest of this universe, and where did they come from?

Litecoin

Litecoin is one of the first altcoins, and it is nearly identical to Bitcoin after being “forked” in 2011. Litecoin aims to process blocks 4x faster than Bitcoin to speed up transaction confirmation time, though this creates several other challenges as well. At time of writing, Litecoin’s market capitalization is worth $1.3 billion.

Ethereum

Ethereum, launched in 2015, is the largest coin by market capitalization aside from Bitcoin. However, it is also quite different. While Bitcoin is designed to be a payments protocol first, Ethereum enables developers to build and deploy decentralized applications, while also enabling smart contracts. The tokens used to power the network are called Ether, but they can also be traded online. At time of writing, Ethereum’s market capitalization is $15.4 billion.

Also interesting: the Ethereum network actually split into two in 2016. It’s a complicated situation, but read about it here. There is now a separate Ethereum, based on the original Ethereum blockchain, trading as “Ethereum Classic” with its own market capitalization of $1.4 billion.

Ripple

Ripple (XRP) is the native currency of the Ripple Protocol – a broader catch-all for an open-source, global exchange. It’s already being used by banks such as Santander, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, UBS, and RBC. It solves a different problem than Bitcoin, allowing for settling payments between different currencies and even different payment systems. Today, Ripple’s native coin (XRP) has a market cap of $10.9 billion.

LEARN MORE

With over 800+ altcoins or assets out there, there’s plenty of information to absorb.

Here’s a short 20-minute course on the history of altcoins that might provide useful context, as well as in-depth explanations of Ethereum and Ripple that may help you learn about the important parts of a rapidly growing altcoin universe.

9 Charts Showing Market Bears Are Waking Up

Just when you thought it was safe to stride safely through the forest of stock market investing (hey - banks, Trump, hope, reform, stimulus, earnings, and Trump again); the bears are coming out of hibernation...

The calm in stocks worldwide is giving way to concern, as Bloomberg reports investors in Europe and the U.S. are rushing to hedge against declines and a Credit Suisse index flashing a warning as the list of economic and political obstacles grows. As we detailed earlier,

“While put demand has certainly increased over the past week, the biggest mover actually comes from the call-side,” Xu said in a report dated Wednesday. “Falling call skew indicates investors see less potential for market upside going forward, perhaps in recognition of the increased macro and political headwinds.”

And VIX is considerably decoupled from stocks...

There’s no shortage of potential concerns, notes Bloomberg. Tensions over North Korea"s nuclear program have intensified days after the U.S. fired missiles at a Syrian airfield. There’s uncertainty over the outcome of the French election, with the first round scheduled for April 23, and in Britain doubts are emerging on whether the economy can withstand the political shocks the Brexit negotiations will bring.

Other signs of investor nervousness include:

The S&P 500 broke below its 50-day moving average for the first time since the election...

The cost of hedging against a 5% tumble in the S&P 500 Index over the next month has increased at the fastest rate since June’s Brexit referendum, relative to options betting on a gain of that magnitude.

Correlation in US and European equity markets is resurgent. That’s something that often happens in times of crisis, and is an expression of concern that forthcoming political events will dominate market movements and overshadow company-specific forces.

And risk is rising everywhere, not just stocks...

Safe-Haven Assets are heavily bid...

The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury is starting to behave as it did in the run-up to the Brexit vote, as yields fall while volatility climbs in one-month options, according to the Merrill Lynch Move Index...

Gold is closing in on $1300 once again, erasing the post-election losses and breaking through its 200-day moving average...

Finally, if the message is still not getting through, here is why - perhaps - some investors are getting nervous...

Cognitive Dissonance?

Why Robert Shiller Is Worried About The Market

The last time Robert Shiller heard stock-market investors talk like this in 2000, it didn’t end well for the bulls.

As Bloomberg reports, Shiller says when markets are as buoyant as they are now, resisting the urge to pile in is hard regardless of what else might be happening in society.

“I was tempted to do it, too,” he says. “Trump keeps talking about a new spirit for America and so you could (A) believe that or (B) you could believe that other investors believe that.”

What Shiller will say now is that he’s refrained from adding to his own U.S. stock positions, emphasizing overseas markets instead. One factor that makes him cautious on American shares is the S&P 500’s cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio: While the metric is still about 30 percent below its high in 2000, it shows stocks are almost as expensive now as they were on the eve of the 1929 crash.

Shiller is not alone.

“I don’t generally call the entire market wrong -- investors are very smart, highly motivated individuals -- but I find it hard to say why stock markets are so un-volatile right now," says Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist who co-designed the uncertainty gauge with colleagues from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University.

For Hersh Shefrin, a finance professor at Santa Clara University and author of a 2007 book on the role of psychology in markets, the rally is just another example of investors’ remarkable penchant for tunnel vision. Shefrin has a favorite analogy to illustrate his point: the great tulip-mania of 17th century Holland. Even the most casual students of financial history are familiar with the frenzy, during which a rare tulip bulb was worth enough money to buy a mansion. What often gets overlooked, though, is that the mania happened during an outbreak of bubonic plague.

“People were dying left and right,” Shefrin says. “So here you have financial markets sending signals completely at odds with the social mood of the time, with the degree of fear at the time.”

But while the academics can look back and study and reflect on the nature of bubbles, the Wall Street types will always find excuses:

“It’s been a period of repeated shocks, and I think people get toughened against that,” Ethan Harris, Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s global economist in New York, says. “It seems like uncertainty is the new norm, so you just learn to live with it.”

We leave it to Mr. Shiller to sum it all up...

“The market is way over-priced," he says. "It’s not as intellectual as people would think, or as economists would have you believe."

Trade accordingly.

SEC Freezes Accounts Of "Highly Suspicious" Traders Who Made $3.6 Million On Fortress Takeover

First, it was the leak of the massive Heinz-Unilever deal that may have scuttled the Warren Buffett-inspired transaction, now it appears that another recent megamerger was leaked 4 days ahead of the announcement. On Wednesday morning, the SEC froze brokerage accounts of several unnamed traders who made more than $3.6 million in profits by trading in the four days before the $3.3 billion takeover of Fortress Investment Group was announced by Japan’s SoftBank.

According to the FT, the traders placed “highly suspicious” orders for shares and contracts for difference, or CFDs, through Singapore-based Maybank Securities and a brokerage in London, R.J. O’Brien. Breaking the second cardinal rule of insider trading, i.e., never to buy stocks in bulk in the day ahead of the announcement (the first such rule is never to buy calls the before a deal is announced although the "insiders" did that too), all the trades through Maybank were made within a 24-hour period before the deal to buy the US-listed private equity firm was announced to the market; meanwhile trade through R.J. O’Brien took place between February 10 and 14, the day the deal was disclosed the SEC reported.

“The timing, size and profitability of these trades are highly suspicious,” the SEC said in a court filing asking for the freeze.

As the FT adds, the SEC is seeking a judgment to force the traders to disgorge the profits and pay a penalty. SoftBank’s offer for Fortress was a 30 per cent premium over the private equity firm’s closing share price that day. Also, as the SEC further notes, it appears that the rookie traders decided to really bring attention on themselves by also breaking Cardinal rule #1: a burst of option buying ahead of the deal. Just like in the case of the Unilever deal, which saw a surge in call option volume for both Unilever and Kraft Heinz ahead of the announcement...

...  the size of bets in the options market prior to the deal raised eyebrows in the US, leading several market experts to believe that information had been leaked ahead of the deal.

The volume of options trading in Fortress was more than eight times the normal level ahead of the deal’s public announcement. Specifically, customers of Maybank bought 950,000 shares in Fortress hours before the announcement, selling them the next morning for $1.7 million. R.J. O’Brien’s customers bought CFDs and shares in Fortress, which they sold on February 15 for $1.9 million, according to the SEC’s complaint seeking the freeze.

Also notable is how quickly the leak appears to have emerged: the Maybank clients began placing the trades on February 14, building up a $5 million position, 33 minutes after Fortress’s board of directors received an email with draft resolutions approving the deal, according to the SEC. Only two days before, there was “serious doubt” as to whether the deal would even go through, the SEC complaint said.

Discussions between SoftBank and Fortress had begun in December, and the two companies initially planned to finalise the deal over the weekend of February 10-12, putting it to a board vote at Fortress on February 12.  The R.J. O’Brien clients began buying CFDs on February 10, through an account with Merrill Lynch, just before that weekend. The only other time Maybank bought any Fortress stock through its account at UBS was in February 2016, when 10,000 shares were bought and later sold in April.

As the FT notes, the emergency court order obtained by the SEC on February 24 will prevent the traders from accessing any of those gains. As yet, the SEC said they do not know the identities of the traders, but said in the complaint they are “believed to be foreign traders trading through foreign accounts”.

In recent years, suspicious trading before deals has been under increased scrutiny by the SEC and regulators around the world after insider trading prosecutions in New York over the past decade exposed the extent of the crime. The SEC has yet to launch a probe into the far larger Unilever leak(s).