The Coming Rout
by Chris Martenson
Recently
by Chris Martenson: Fuzzy
Numbers
There's a scenario
that could play out between May and September in which commodities
(including my beloved silver) and the stock and bond markets could
all sell off between 20% and 40%. The trigger will be the cessation
of QE II and a multi-month pause before QE III.
This is a reversal
in my thinking from the outright inflationary 'buy with both hands'
bent that I have held for the past two years. Even though it's quite
a speculative analysis at this early stage, it is a possibility
that we must consider.
Important note:
This is a short-term scenario that stems from my trading
days, so if you are a long-term holder of a core position in gold
and silver, as am I, nothing has changed in my extended outlook
for these metals. The fiscal and monetary path we are on has a very
high likelihood of failure over the coming decade, and I see nothing
that shakes that view.
But over the
next 3-6 months, I have a few specific concerns.
It's time to
build on the idea I planted in the Insider article entitled Blame
the Victim (February 28, 2011) where I speculated on the idea
that the Fed might be forced to end its quantitative easing programs,
almost certainly because of behind-the-scenes pressure.
Here's what
I said:
How I read
[the Fed's recent propaganda tour] is that the Fed is taking some
heat for its inflationary policies, mainly behind closed doors,
and it is trying to do what it can with words to
soothe the situation. Perhaps China is making noises, or perhaps
Brazil's finance minister is making the phone lines feeding the
Eccles building smoke ominously, or perhaps it is internal pressure
coming from politicians with restless voters. Or all three.
The big
risk here is that the Fed will be forced by this rising pressure
to discontinue the QE program in June at the normal ending of
the QE II efforts. Couple that with a possible federal showdown
over the debt ceiling right at the same time, and you have the
makings for a massive fireworks display, possibly involving derivative
mortars bursting in air.
At the time,
I speculated that all of the Fed's pronouncements about inflation
being almost nonexistent were actually signs that the Fed was taking
some behind-the-scenes heat for the inflation its policies was creating.
And I worried about what would happen if the Fed were to end the
QE program in June.
Let's just
say it won't be pretty.
Everything
would tank. Stocks, bonds, and commodities. All of the risk assets
that have been unnaturally supported by a flood of liquidity, too-low
interest rates, and thin-air base money would give up those ill-gotten
gains. Gold might behave a bit differently, because along
with these market declines will come an enormous amount of uncertainty
about the financial system itself, usually a condition for higher
gold prices. So I expect gold to correct somewhat, but not nearly
as much as everything else, and it could even gain.
The story is,
admittedly, getting more confusing by the week, with some calling
for hyperinflation and some calling for massive, outright deflation.
I am trying to surf the probabilities and stay one step ahead of
whatever curve balls are coming our way.
The basic idea
is this: The Fed has been dumping roughly $4 billion of thin-air
money into the US markets each trading day since November 2010.
The markets, all of them, are higher than they would be without
this money. $4 billion per trading day is an enormous amount of
money. It's gigantic by historical standards. As soon as the QE
program ends, the markets will have to subsist on a lot less money
and liquidity, and the result is almost perfectly predictable.
Hello, downdraft.
The markets
are quite substantially elevated due to the efforts of the Fed.
T, and then some, is quite likely to be rapidly eliminated as soon
as the QE program has ended.
It's really
that simple.
To make the
story even more difficult to follow, the Fed has been sending out
teams of PR agents in an effort to guide the markets with their
words.
First, on March
2, 2011 Bernanke said this:
Bernanke
Signals No Rush to Tighten When Asset-Buying Ends
March 2,
2011
Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled hes in no rush
to tighten credit after the Fed finishes an expansion of record
monetary stimulus, seeing little inflation risk and still-slow
job growth.
A surge
in the prices of oil and other commodities probably wont
generate a lasting rise in inflation, Bernanke told lawmakers
yesterday in semiannual testimony on monetary policy. A sustained
period of stronger job creation is needed to ensure a solid
recovery, and the Feds benchmark rate will stay low for
an extended period, he said.
The "no
rush to tighten credit" statement is a signal that the Fed
will neither raise rates at the end of the QE program nor perform
reverse POMOs where it reels cash back in and pushes MBS and/or
Treasury paper back out.
Upon the cessation
of the QE efforts, and the cessation of $4 billion a day in Treasury
buying pressure, it's a safe bet that market interest rates will
rise. Bernanke is at least on record as saying that if this happens,
it won't be because the Fed has taken the lead.
Bernanke was
being a little bit sloppy in his statements, because stopping QE
will serve to tighten credit simply because there will be a lot
less liquidity sloshing around the system. It's a situation where
the absence of excess is the same as the presence of tightness,
if that makes any sense.
Then on March
5th, a much stronger and clearer signal was given, confirming my
worries:
Fed
Policy Makers Signal Abrupt End to Bond Purchases in June
March 4,
2011
Federal
Reserve policy makers are signaling they favor an abrupt end to
$600 billion in Treasury purchases in June, jettisoning their
prior strategy of gradually pulling back on intervention in bond
markets.
I
dont see a lot of gain to reverting to a tapering approach,
Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart told reporters yesterday.
I dont think that is necessary, Philadelphia
Fed President Charles Plosser said last month.
Whoa. This
is important news. Not only a cessation of QE, but the possibility
of a sudden stop is being telegraphed. This will change everything.
The old saying
'sell in May and go away' might never be truer than this year, although
with this sort of a warning, the cautious investor may want to get
a head start on things and sell in March or April.
For some time
there have been rumors that the Fed has been splitting into factions,
with some of the inner team becoming increasingly uncomfortable
with the QE program and its effects. But so far they've either spoken
in code to reveal their displeasure or quietly resigned. So we're
pretty sure there's an admirable level of support within the Fed
for ending QE, and it has now bubbled to the surface and reached
the public arena.
Of course,
there's some form of gobbledy-gook reasoning being floated to justify
the plan for a sudden stop rather than a gentle wind-down, and it
involves the distinction between 'stocks and flows' (from the same
article as above):
Fed staff
members, such as Brian Sack, the New York Fed official in charge
of carrying out the bond buying, have argued the total amount,
or stock, of securities the Fed has announced it will make has
more impact on longer-term interest rates than the timing of those
purchases. Thats a view now held by several members on the
Federal Open Market Committee, including the chairman.
We
learned in the first quarter of last year, when we ended our previous
program, that the markets had anticipated that adequately, and
we didnt see any major impact on interest rates, Fed
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee during
his March 1 semiannual monetary-policy testimony. Its
really the total amount of holdings, rather than the flow of new
purchases, that affects the level of interest rates.
Fed Vice
Chairman Janet Yellen supported that perspective, saying at a
monetary policy forum in New York last week that the stock
view won out over the flow view.
The idea that
Brian Sack, a 40-year-old economist with a PhD from MIT, is winning
the day in the argument of "stocks over flows" is somewhat
troubling to me. MIT is a quantitative shop, home to some very brilliant
people, but how markets will actually respond is another specialty
altogether, one that requires a bit of on-the-street experience.
Markets have a bad habit of not being logical, not fitting neatly
into tidy formulas, and ignoring things like 'stocks and flows.'
I'll go even
further. I'll take the other side of that bet and opine that the
flows are much more important than the stocks, because it
is the flows that support the continued budget deficits of the US
government which, it should be noted, will still be with
us each and every month long after June 2011. Those deficits are
baked into the cake and will require in excess of $125 billion in
new Treasury sales each and every month.
Who will buy
all the Treasury bonds after the Fed steps aside? That is unclear.
If there are not enough buyers at these artificially inflated prices,
then the price will have to fall until sufficient buyers can be
found. Falling bond prices are at the other side of the financial
see-saw from rising bond yields; one goes down while the other goes
up, and the Fed has been pressing firmly down on yields for a while
via the QE II program. When that's over, pressure will be reduced
and yields will rise.
So what to
do? For those concerned enough about this possible scenario to consider
taking action, please
see Part II of this article (free executive summary; paid enrollment
required to access). In it, I predict the extent to which stocks,
commodities, Treasury bonds and precious metals prices may be impacted
in the near term. I also detail the key indicators to look out for
in order to determine if and when this scenario is unfolding
as well as recommended strategies to preserve capital during this
corrective phase.
Click
here to access Part II.
March
10, 2011
Copyright
© 2011 Chris
Martenson
|