Today's Stock Market Action Looks A Lot Like August 1998

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

Something is seriously bothering the stock market and the news that's out there isn't enough to justify what is going on. Such was the case in August 1998 as well. What caused the sudden bear market to appear out of nowhere in 1998 became fully evident only after the fact. The same could be the case in August 2011.

Perhaps the flash crash in October 1997 was a warning of things to come, just as the flash crash in May 2010 may have been a prelude to today's stock market drop. In the second half of July of 1998, stocks began to nosedive suddenly, just as they did in 2011. Some stabilization took place in the market toward the middle of August in 1998 and then a new deeper plunge began. Today, the Dow Jones industrials were suddenly down over 500 points this morning on what could only be considered minor bad news.

There were actually two problems causing the market debacle in 1998. Everyone knew about one of them - the Russian debt default and devaluation of the rubble, which took place on August 17th (less than half of the eventual market decline took place before this date).  Only Wall Street insiders knew about the second one - problems at Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) - that almost brought down the financial system. 

Trouble in Russia was evident as early as October 1997 and it resulted from the fallout from the Asian financial crisis, which in turn started as a currency crisis in Thailand in July of that year. Today, Europe is undergoing a crisis with the euro that began in Greece in 2010. By August 1998, the Russian central bank had spent a great deal of its dollar reserves defending the ruble and decided to give up. The default had a number of ripple effects, but the most important one on LTCM wouldn't be known by the public until late September, only days before the market finally hit bottom.

After the Russian debt default, stocks plunged until the beginning of September. The market was close to its ultimate low at that point, but only because of the subsequent successful rescue of LTCM.  Stocks then rallied for approximately three weeks. A bailout of LTCM was arranged by the Federal Reserve on September 23rd. The market then sold off until early October hitting a new low and then the decline  was over.

In the rally that followed the stock market experienced huge gains led by a bubble in tech stocks. This was a consequence of the Fed lowering interest rates and pumping too much money into the financial system. The Fed had a lot of leeway to do both in 1998 and still there were serious negative results between 2000 and 2002 when the tech bubble collapsed. Inflation wasn't a concern back then because commodity prices had been declining for almost two decades and were around their lows. It should be assumed that a failure to have successfully rescued LTCM would have caused a much bigger drop in stocks (as happened when the Fed didn't bail out Lehman Brothers in September 2008).

The Fed has a lot less ability to maneuver in August 2011. Fed funds rates have been at zero since December 2008. The Fed has already expanded its balance sheet by approximately $2 trillion since the Credit Crisis began. Commodities are closer to their all-time highs now, not their lows. Another bailout like the one in 1998 (which was minor compared to what occurred during the Credit Crisis) could send inflation assets into a bubble. Gold is already trading over $1800 today and seems to be leading the way.  

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Surgery Done by a Bull in the China Shop

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Today is the beginning of the spring quarter and the new fiscal year in Japan. Last night, most of Asia rallied and the Nikkei was up smartly (the Nikkei never hit a new low in the market sell off this spring by the way). A bailout plan in Taiwan for semiconductor manufacturers was bullish for tech stocks throughout the region. A Chinese manufacturing report was dismal, although off the low established last November (when the prices of many commodities also bottomed). European bourses are down this morning and the U.S. market indices gapped down after gapping up yesterday. The market is worried about the G20 Meeting tomorrow and the Jobs Report on Friday. The U.S. government possibly forcing GM into bankruptcy has also reared its ugly head again as well.

The government's current handling of GM is incredibly destructive economically. News has been leaked that Obama thinks a 'surgical bankruptcy' is the best option. If so, that surgery is being conducted by a bull in a China shop. A recapitulation of what is going on:

1. The U.S. Economy has been losing its manufacturing base for the last 30 years and has moved increasingly to a FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economy and this has led to the current implosion of our financial system.
2. Instead of trying to revive manufacturing, the government is trying to drive a top manufacturer into bankruptcy - and somehow this is going to improve things.
3. Sales for automakers are down as much as 50% year over year because of the economy. The U.S. government then tells reluctant car purchasers that we are trying to drive GM out of business and make them worry that if they buy a GM car they will ever be able to get it fixed (this may not be realistic, but it is something that will give the consumer pause and hurt GM sales even more).
4. No one knows how many credit default swaps there are on GM bonds, but the number is probably substantial. A bankruptcy would put them in the money and require that they be paid off. Most of them would have been sold by insurance companies and brokers that are already getting government bailouts and this will require more bailout money (probably many times what it would cost to bailout GM) to make up for the losses.
5. The U.S government just spent $5 billion bailing out auto part suppliers and is undermining that bailout if it forces GM into bankruptcy.
6. There are a large number of current and former employees of the auto industry, its suppliers, its shippers, etc that will be negatively affected by this action.
7. The GM announcement stopped a nascent stock market recovery in its tracks, wiping out billions more from retirement portfolios. The Dow was up over 20% (technically a new bull market) and the government apparently couldn't wait to drive it right back into bear market territory. Treasury Secretary Geithner already caused a major market sell off previously with his handling of Citigroup. If the Obama administration's goal is to keep stock prices down, they are achieving outstanding success.

While I am not a fan of bailouts, I am even more opposed to incompetent business practices combined with unlimited government stupidity. As we have said in this blog before you can bailout no one or you can bail out everyone, but doing some bailouts and not others produces the worst results. What the Obama administration is doing with GM makes no sense on any level - and it does not bode well for the handling of economic matters going forward.

NEXT: The Bull Heard Around the World

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Short Term, the Market is Looking Better

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

While nothing has changed in the long term outlook for the U.S. stock market, the shorter term picture brightened from a technical perspective somewhat on Friday. Bear market rallies can come out of nowhere and can be highly profitable. They should not be avoided as is currently being advised by the never-made-a-dime-trading 'pundits' who are now pompously announcing 'the long-term trend hasn't changed'. This would be hard to argue with. However it is in the short term that you make quick money.

Examining many charts, you will find a common pattern of almost vertical drops without much or any relief rallies. These drops have gone on for 6 months or more (a common maximum period for selling). The trend has gone sideways for the last two months or so. If you look at moving averages you will see that they have become bunched together on the daily charts. Even looking at these charts for a brief period, it is sometimes impossible to differentiate the 10-day, 20-day, 30-day, etc. moving averages. Bollinger Bands have become very narrow. The tight moving averages and narrow Bollinger Bands frequently precede trend changes.

The Nasdaq is leading the other U.S. stock indices. On Thursday it closed above its bundle of moving averages on the daily chart and then rallied strongly on Friday to the top of its Bollinger Band. Similar behavior took place in early January and Nasdaq traded above the Bollinger Band for one day. That breakout failed however. While the RSI and MACD looked good at that time, the down trend pattern of the DMI was not quite resolved at that point. Things look better now and the moving averages are more tightly intertwined . There is still no guarantee of a rally yet though. The price needs to either ride upward with a rising Bollinger Band or jump above it. The moving averages need to start rising with the 10-day on top, the 20-day just underneath it, the 30-day just underneath that, etc. When the moving averages are all together as they are now even a short rally will start to create this pattern.

The other thing to pay attention to is that there were two major pieces of bad economic news lately - the GDP report and the Jobs Report. The Market rallied both days. When the market does this, the bad news has already been priced in. This doesn't necessarily mean a big rally is coming, but the downside risk during those times is actually relatively low and the upside potential is very high. In addition to the tech stock laden Nasdaq, oil, coal, and non-precious metals are starting to look interesting. The first thing you should be looking for before buying is a close above the 50-day moving average. You also always need to keep in mind that you need to take your profits when you get them.

NEXT: The Slippery Slope of Oil Media Coverage

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Inflation Versus Deflation Argument - Part 5

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

If the deflationists aren't really discussing consumer price inflation, what is it that they are really talking about? To figure this out, it is helpful to seperately analyze the two components of the deflationist argument, bank credit and money supply, since they operate in very different ways and combining them obfuscates the picture.

Since people don't take out a bank loan to buy a quart of milk or a tank of gas, but they do borrow to buy a house and financial instruments, there is a direct relationship between bank credit and asset prices. The effects of increases or decreases in bank credit are likely to show up relatively quickly in prices for real estate, bonds, and stocks. Only much lately are they likely to impact consumer prices and even then they will represent only one of many components (currency exchange rates being potentially far more important).

This proposed direct relationships between credit and asset prices and currency and consumer prices seems to be well supported by real world observations. In the late 1920s U.S. there was a massive increase in credit and strong bull markets in housing, stocks, and bonds, yet consumer prices were dropping. Even though the U.S. currency didn't float at the time, capital was flowing into the New York from around the world and if the value of the dollar had been market driven, it's exchange rate would have been rising. A similar picture exists for Japan in the 1980s, although there was an even more massive asset bubble and the Yen was experiencing a far more significant rise that the U.S. dollar would have had in the 1920s.

In contrast, the U.S. in the 2000s was a period of declining currency values, the dollar peaked in 2002 and lost more than a third of its value by 2008. Bank credit expansion during this period led to massive bubbles in real estate and related debt instruments, with the S&P testing its 2000 bubble high in late 2007. When bank credit began its severe retraction, prices for real estate, non-government bonds, and stocks had significant drops. Consumer prices on the other hand accelerated higher. One major reason was the rising price in commodities. Since commodities are priced in dollars, they will go up if the U.S. dollar goes down.

The other component of the deflationist argument, money supply, has an obvious lagged effect on consumer prices. Changes can show up many years later. An examination of a money supply chart from the 1970s illustrates this quite clearly. M3 growth peaked in 1971, yet U.S. consumer price inflation didn't have an intermediate term peak until 1974 and the final high wasn't reached until 1980. The large rise in M3 in 2008 isn't likely to have its full impact on consumer inflation until some time in the 2010s.

Since deflation inevitably follows serious inflation, the deflationists at some point will be correct that there will be deflation in the United States. Worrying about deflation now though is like closing your windows and turning up your heat in May because you are worried about a cold winter coming.

For notes related to this talk, please see, 'Inflation vs Deflation Argument' at:http://investing.meetup.com/21/Files

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

For more about us, please see our web site: http://investing.meetup.com/21

Bubble, Bubble, Toil, and Trouble

The 'Helicopter Economics Guide Investing' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

The Subprime Crisis that began causing turmoil in the U.S. markets in July 2007 was merely a small part of a massive and pervasive credit bubble that reached into every nook and cranny of the U.S. financial system. A huge excess in credit had been extended and utilized everywhere and to almost everyone. Government, consumers, market players, and businesses had borrowed beyond the hilt to maintain a system that required an ever-increasing amount of credit to sustain itself. Subprime debt was merely the weakest link in this credit chain, so it broke first.

The origins of the subprime bubble can be traced back to events in the 1980s, Early in the decade the idea that less regulation of financial institutions was a good idea took hold. The Savings and Loan industry was deregulated and it turned into a monumental failure that wound up costing the U.S. taxpayer $200 billion because of the out of control corruption, theft, and financial incompetence that deregulation allowed to occur. Nevertheless, deregulation of the financial industry continued and regulation of financial instruments such as derivatives or new industry players, such as hedge funds did not take place because 'regulation was too costly'. Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan was generally opposed to regulation and not only did everything possible to prevent new regulations, but didn't utilize the Fed's existing powers to regulate during the years he controlled the Fed from 1987 to 2006.

Decreasing regulation was then combined with a huge increase in liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve. This process began during the 1987 stock market crash, which Alan Greenspan handled successfully with a sharp drop in interest rates and by pumping money into the financial system. This set the tone for the next 19 years of the Greenspan Fed. In order to bailout the U.S. banking system from the Savings and Loan Crisis, interest rates were lowered
too much and for too long in the early 1990s. This excess in liquidity in turn led to the stock market bubble later in the decade. When the tech-stock bubble collapsed, interest rates were eventually lowered to one percent and this inflated a real estate bubble - something that Greenspan continually denied existed.

The conditions that led to these bubbles were no different than the ones the created all bubbles throughout history. Declining yields combined with an excess of capital (both are created simultaneously by the Fed), lack of regulation which allows for widespread fraud and corruption, and a technical or financial innovation. In the case of the tech stock bubble, the Internet was the technical innovation and for the real estate bubble, it was packaging subprime loans into bonds which could be sold, transferring the risk to other parties and providing capital to make more loans. As more and more loans were made, the quality of those loans by necessity deteriorated.

Bubbles always have feedback mechanisms as well and once started they become almost impossible to stop until they burst. Once they burst however, an anti-bubble forms with the original feedback mechanism operating in reverse. This anti-bubble in itself becomes almost impossible to stop until it exhausts itself. The feedback mechanism is what allows prices in bubbles to go way beyond anything reasonable or even imaginable when they start and then to the drop on the downside to levels that are incredibly low.

Ben Bernanke was desperately trying to reflate the real estate centric bubble with his rates cuts in the fall of 2007. This was a hopeless task, since once a bubble begins collapsing it usually takes many, many years before it can be reflated. What does occur is another bubble gets created elsewhere in the financial system. The Bernanke bubble would turn out to be in inflation.

Next: China's Olympic Size Bubble

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup

Please see our web site for more about us: http://investing.meetup.com/21