domenica 4 febbraio 2018

Why Albert Einstein Thought We Were All Insane

In the early summer of 1914, Albert Einstein was about to start a prestigious new job as Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics.

The position was a big deal for the 35-year old Einstein– confirmation that he was one of the leading scientific minds in the world. And he was excited about what he would be able to achieve there.

But within weeks of Einstein's arrival, the German government canceled plans for the Institute; World War I had broken out, and all of Europe was gearing up for one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

The impact of the Great War was immeasurable.

It cost the lives of 10 million people. It bankrupted entire nations.

The war ripped two major European powers off the map– the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire– and deposited them in the garbage can of history.

Austria-Hungary in particular boasted the second largest land mass in Europe, the third highest population, and one of the biggest economies. Plus it was a leading manufacturer of high-tech machinery.

Yet by the end of the war it would no longer exist.

World War I also played a major role in the emergence of communism in Russia through the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

Plus it was also a critical factor in the astonishing rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

Without the Great War, Adolf Hitler would have been an obscure Austrian vagabond, and our world would be an entirely different place.

One of the most bizarre things about World War I was how predictable it was.

Tensions had been building in Europe for years, and the threat of war was deemed so likely that most major governments invested heavily in detailed war plans.

The most famous was Germany's "Schlieffen Plan", a military offensive strategy named after its architect, Count Alfred von Schlieffen.

To describe the Schlieffen Plan as "comprehensive" is a massive understatement.

As AJP describes in his book War by Timetable, the Schlieffen Plan called for rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the front lines, plus food, equipment, horses, munitions, and other critical supplies, all in a matter of DAYS.

Tens of thousands of trains were criss-crossing Europe during the mobilization, and as you can imagine, all the trains had to run precisely on time.

A train that was even a minute early or a minute late would cause a chain reaction to the rest of the plan, affecting the time tables of other trains and other troop movements.

In short, there was no room for error.

In many respects the Schlieffen Plan is still with us to this day– not with regards to war, but for monetary policy.

Like the German General Staff more than a century ago, modern central bankers concoct the most complicated, elaborate plans to engineer economic victory.

Their success depends on being able to precisely control the [sometimes irrational] behavior of hundreds of millions of consumers, millions of businesses, dozens of foreign nations, and trillions of dollars of capital.

And just like the obtusely complex war plans from 1914, central bank policy requires that all the trains run on time. There is no room for error.


This is nuts. Economies are comprised of billions of moving pieces that are beyond anyone's control and often have competing interests.

A government that's $21 trillion in debt requires cheap money (i.e. low interest rates) to stay afloat.

Yet low interest rates are severely punishing for savers, retirees, and pension funds (including Social Security) because they're unable to generate a sufficient rate of return to meet their needs.

Low interest rates are great for capital intensive businesses that need to borrow money. But they also create dangerous asset bubbles and can eventually cause a painful rise in inflation.

Raise interest rates too high, however, and it could bankrupt debtors and throw the economy into a tailspin.

Like I said, there's no room for error– they have to find the perfect balance between growth and inflation.

Hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio summed it up perfectly last month when he said,

"It becomes more and more difficult to balance those things as time goes on. . . It may not be a problem in the next year or two, but the risk of not getting it right increases with time."

Today there's a changing of the guard at the Federal Reserve– Janet Yellen is leaving her post as chair, and she's being succeeded by Jerome Powell.

Yellen leaves her post having brought down the unemployment rate in the United States to 4.2%, which certainly sounds nice.

Yet at the same time, workers' wages (when adjusted for inflation) have hardly budged under her tenure.

Americans' savings rate has been cut in half. Consumer debt and student loans are at all-time highs.

And dangerous asset bubbles have expanded, from stocks to bonds to property.

The risk of them getting it wrong is clearly growing.

That's why having your plan B is so important.

It's a simple concept: don't keep all of your eggs in one basket, especially when the people who control the basket have such a tiny margin of error.

The right Plan B makes sense no matter what happens, or doesn't happen, next. If they get it right, you won't be worse off. But if they get it wrong, you'll still prosper.

I truly hope they don't get it wrong.

But if they ever do, people may finally look back and wonder how we could have been so foolish to hand total control of our economy over to an unelected committee of bureaucrats with a mediocre track record... and then expect them to get it right forever.

It's pretty insane when you think about it.

As Einstein quipped at the height of World War I in 1917, "What a pity we don't live on Mars so that we could observe the futile activities of human beings only through a telescope. . ..

It's The Turning Point" - Bond, Stock Slump Sparks Worst Week For 'Risk-Parity' Since 2013 Tantrum

Friday's US equity market collapse and simultaneous bond market bloodbath was the biggest combined loss since December 2015, but perhaps more ominously, the week's combined loss in bonds and stocks was the worst since Feb 2009.


Many suggested that Friday's slump was GOP-memo-related, and it may well have removed some froth, but judging by the major correlation regime shift between stocks and bonds that started on Monday, we suspect this is something considerably more worrisome for investors.


Even JPMorgan admits that the bond market sell-off gathered pace over the past week raising concerns about its impact on equity markets. This is especially because the bond-equity correlation, which has been predominantly negative since theLehman crisis, has started creeping up towards positive territory.

The 90-day correlation between stock (SPY) and bond (TLT) markets has surged ominously in the last few weeks...


In turn this raises concerns about de-risking by multi-asset investors who depend on this correlation staying in negative territory such as risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds? How worried should we be about de-risking by these two types of investors?

Very.

Judging by the impact on Risk-Parity funds yesterday (worst single-day performance since August 2015's flash-crash)...


And this week (worst weekly drop in Risk-Parity funds since June 2013's Bernanke Taper Tantrum)...


As mentioned above, these types of investors benefit from the structurally negative correlation between bonds and equities as this negative correlation suppresses the volatility of bond/equity portfolios allowing these investors to apply higher leverage and thus boost their returns. But, as JPMorgan points out, the opposite takes place when this correlation turns positive: the volatility of bond/equity portfolios increases, inducing these investors to de-lever.

In the past, just as we have seen this year, these risk-parity-correlation tantrums have been cushioned by equity market inflows, and we note that, in particular, YTD equity ETF flows have surpassed the $100bn mark, a record high pace.

If these equity ETF flows, which JPMorgan believes are largely driven by retail investors, start reversing, not only would the equity market retrench, but the resultant rise in bond-equity correlation would likely induce de-risking by risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds, magnifying the eventual equity market sell-off.

Which could be a problem...


Yesterday was the first day of the year when equity ETFs saw significant outflows of $3.7bn.

While JPMorgan states that they are "reluctant to attach too much importance to the outflows of only one day," the risk of a more significant equity market correction will naturally rise if these outflows extend into next week.

Put more simply - either we get a major equity ETF inflow to offset the risk parity hit, or markets are going a lot lower, a lot faster as the forced deleveraging accelerates.

Even Bloomberg is worried, looking at the week's drumbeat, you can't help but wonder, is this the start of something big? Warnings about valuations have been pouring forth from bears for so long that barely anyone listens anymore. With the S&P 500 up almost 50 percent in less than two years, some see the end of the blissfully easy money that equities have spewed out for 13 straight months.

"It's the turning point of volatility," said Jeffrey Schulze, chief investment strategist at Clearbridge Investments, which manages $137 billion. "We were all very fortunate to go through a year like 2017. But there's a number of different dynamics this year that will make volatility more part of the equation than it has been in quite some time."

The problem is likely not helped by record-high valuations (but as Yellen says "don't call it a bubble")...


And record-high leveraged positioning...


"The list of growing challenges have caught up to stocks," said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Weeden Capital Management LLC. "We probably need a valuation correction for both stocks and bonds to be more appropriately priced for an economy now growing at 3% real/5% nominal at full employment with rising labor costs and capital costs."

And the potential for a quant-fund-driven forced-liquidation is growing every day with bond-stock correlations.

The Ultimate Bear Chart

"There are two bubbles: We have a stock market bubble, and we have a bond market bubble" – Alan Greenspan January 31, 2018

This may not come as a surprise, but: I agree with him. Oh I know, every time Alan Greenspan says something related to "irrational exuberance" immediately the comments come that he said it in 1996 and stocks didn't blow-up until 2000. While that may have been true then it didn't invalidate his premise nor is the timing relevant to now. Back then people ignored him and went full bubble mode until it popped.

Indeed this one may still go on for a while and 2018 upside risk targets remain despite this week's first pullback action of 2018. However this week's corrective move coincided with a sustained technical breakout in the 10 year yield above its 30 year trend lines. Stock clearly reacted and not favorably.

Which brings me precisely to the relationship between stocks and bonds. If Alan Greenspan is correct then a chart I have been watching and musing about for a while may be the ultimate bear chart.

I've shown this chart before, but let me walk you through the theory of it.

This is a ratio chart of $TNX (10 year yield) vs the $SPX and yields a stunning picture:


The correlation is stunning to me from a technical perspective. Why? Because it is so incredibly precise.

Indeed, if Alan Greenspan is right, this chart could have enormous implications for the next few years. This chart could suggests a massive multi year bear market to emerge.

Let me explain why and how.

The ratio bottomed right near the 2008/2009 lows and, as you can see, we've seen a continued rise until the middle of 2016. In the years in between a trend line established itself that acted as precise support until the US election. That's when everything went pear shaped.

Since then the trend line became resistance and the renewed effort to break above it rejected precisely at the trend line again in 2017. Given this history it seems hardly a coincidence, but rather suggests a technical relationship of importance.

Currently we see the ratio dropping hard this week. Why? Because stocks are falling and yields are rising. Which means that for this to move back higher yields must drop and stocks rise. Or at least yields need to stop rising.

But if yields continue to rise and stocks continue to fall the actual pattern of the ratio could be even more alarming:


That's a massive multi-year heads and shoulders pattern. It's not confirmed until it breaks its neckline, but consider the possibilities in context of the recent price action and in correlation to stocks and bonds on their own:


Basically what this implies is that the entire rally since the early 2016 lows will turn out to have been a blow-off top. Recall what I said at the outset: The high in ratio was made in mid 2016. The action since has placed 2 bear patterns: 1. The trend line break 2. The heads and shoulders pattern.

Now let me clear: I'm not calling for an immediate collapse here, but I'm, pointing to a possibly huge structural relationship between bonds and stocks, one that will likely take years to play out. But the signs of trouble are already in this chart. Bottom line: Bulls need yields to drop sooner rather than later or this market party may come to an abrupt end with deep reaching consequences.

There may hope in the short term as the ratio is about to reach critical support:


But if the ratio breaks below its neckline, then this chart may indeed prove to be the ultimate bear chart.