European Retail Sales Decline Most in Nine Months

‘market forces’ are driving national deficits higher via automatic stabilizers which drives the euro lower to the point exports rise sufficiently to turn the tide, but that needs to happen before the rising deficits result in defaults.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:04 AM, La-Toya Elizee wrote:

European Retail Sales Decline Most in Nine Months

Revamped ECB Lending Rules May Cause Greece Pain

German Factory Orders Unchanged After January Jump

French Trade Deficit Widened in February on Imports

Capital flight squeezes Greek banks

Italy needs deep reform, say employers

Spain’s Industrial Output Falls More Than Expected in February

China Inflation Seen at 15% With Wen Jiabao Losing Boom Control

More info dripping out regarding an inflation problem which ultimately weakens a currency.

Earlier reports showing US Treasury holdings falling and State dollar debt growing point to the same thing, as does
the reports of govt. efforts to ‘tighten’ policy via reductions in the growth of lending etc.

China Inflation Seen at 15% With Wen Jiabao Losing Boom Control

By Bloomberg News
April 8 (Bloomberg) — “Look at the scale of this,” said
Li Chongyi, an engineer, as he watched a 4-kilometer line of
trucks and earth movers busy quadrupling the size of Chongqing’s
Jiangbei International Airport. “This will take years.”
Jiangbei, which begins work on a third terminal when the
second is done next year, is one of 15 trillion yuan ($2.2
trillion) in projects begun in 2009, almost twice the economy of
India. Most were started by local governments as China’s
stimulus package sparked a record 9.6 trillion yuan of loans.
The projects and their loans are stymieing efforts by
Premier Wen Jiabao to curtail investment as inflation rose to
2.7 percent in February, a 16-month high. Failure to rein in
local government spending could push inflation to 15 percent by
2012, said Victor Shih, a political economist at Northwestern
University who spent months tallying government borrowing.
“Increasingly the choice facing the government is between
inflation or bad loans,” said Shih, author of the book
“Finance and Factions in China,” who teaches political science
at the university in Evanston, Illinois. “The only mechanism
for controlling inflation in China is credit restriction, but if
they use that, this show is over — a gigantic wave of bad loans
will appear on banks’ balance sheets.”
Attempts to curb borrowing by raising interest rates would
boost debt-servicing costs for local governments. At the same
time, tightening credit may stall projects, triggering “a
build-up of bad loans,” the Basel, Switzerland-based Bank for
International Settlements said in a quarterly report in December.

Debt Rising

Nomura Holdings Inc., Japan’s biggest brokerage, estimates
local government projects started last year totaled up to 10
trillion yuan — 2.5 times the official 4 trillion yuan stimulus
plan. The Chongqing Economic Times reported April 6 that the
city plans to spend 1 trillion yuan on another 323 projects.
Construction companies working on projects begun by
provincial governments may be shielded from a wider slowdown in
China’s property market, said Ephraim Fields, a fund manager
with Echo Lake Capital in New York.
“These vital, long-term projects should get the necessary
funding even if the overall economy slows down a bit,” said
Fields, who holds shares of China Advanced Construction
Materials Group Inc., a Nasdaq-listed concrete maker that gets
more than 75 percent of its sales from government infrastructure
projects.

Cement Stocks

Roth Capital Partners also favors Beijing-based CADC. The
company’s stock may rise 52 percent to $8 within a year, the
Newport Beach, California-based fund manager forecast. BOC
International analyst Patrick Li recommends buying Xinjiang
Tianshan Cement Co., which he forecasts may gain more than 15
percent, and Tangshan Jidong Cement Co., which may rise almost
23 percent. The projects begun in 2009 will help China’s cement
output rise 11 percent, or 186 million tons, this year, Li
predicts.
Chongqing, China’s wartime capital on the Yangtze River, is
a prime example of how provincial governments multiplied the
effect of the central government’s stimulus plan. The city had
900 billion yuan in loans and credit lines outstanding at the
end of 2009, said Northwestern’s Shih. Chongqing’s economy
expanded 14.9 percent last year, with investment in factories
and property expanding the most in 13 years.
“Chongqing really stood out,” said Hong Kong-born Shih,
35, who joined Northwestern in 2003 after completing a PhD in
government at Harvard University.

Roads and Rail

Chongqing’s projects include a light rail system that will
receive more than 10 billion yuan in investment this year.
The city will spend at least 8 billion yuan on rail
construction and another 15.5 billion yuan on 288 kilometers
(179 miles) of new expressways. Jiangbei airport said it plans
to raise passenger capacity to an annual 30 million when Phase
II is completed next year, from 14 million in 2009. Phase III,
would raise throughput to 55 million passengers.
The municipality’s construction boom has boosted business
confidence and the property market, said Bruce Yang, managing
director of Australia Eastern Elevators Group (China).
Sales at Eastern Elevators surged 51 percent in 2009, aided
by projects such as a local-government office block in Nan’an
district that needed 20 elevators, Yang said at the company’s
headquarters in Nan’an. He has an order this year to install 23
lifts in a government-sponsored hospital near Chengdu in Sichuan
province.

Macau Bridge

Chongqing isn’t alone. Sun Mingchun, an economist with
Nomura in Hong Kong, estimates local governments have proposed
projects with a value of more than 20 trillion yuan since the
stimulus package was announced in November 2008. They include
high-speed rail links between Wuhan in central China and
Guangzhou in the south, the Hong Kong-Macao-Zhuhai Bridge, and
the construction or upgrading of 35 airports. The economic
planning agency says 5,557 kilometers of railways and 98,000
kilometers of highways opened last year.
The building boom boosted construction and materials stocks,
raising concerns of a bubble. Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. rose
almost 74 percent since the stimulus was announced while Anhui
Conch Cement Co. gained 135 percent. The Shanghai Composite
Index rose 80 percent in the period.
Construction of high-speed rail lines linking Xi’an with
Ankang and Datong in Shaanxi province have pushed CADC’s output
to capacity, President Jeremy Goodwin said in a phone interview.
“The demand is so great we are struggling to keep up,”
said Goodwin.

Burst Bubble

Should the boom end in a property-market collapse, even
those stocks tied to the local government projects will be
affected along with most other industries, said Shanghai-based
independent economist Andy Xie, formerly Morgan Stanley’s chief
Asia economist.
“Corporate profits are very much driven by the property
sector,” said Xie. “The largest sectors will be hit hard,
especially banks and insurance companies.”
A gauge of property stocks has fallen more than 6 percent
this year after more than doubling in 2009 as the government
takes steps to cool rising prices, including raising the deposit
requirement to 20 percent of the minimum price of auctioned land.
Property sales were equivalent to 13 percent of gross domestic
product last year.
“Policy makers may need to start thinking about how to
handle the aftermath of the bust,” said Nomura’s Sun.

Lending Target

Policy makers have also moved to tighten credit. The
central bank is seeking to slow lending growth by 22 percent to
7.5 trillion this year.
China’s local governments set up investment vehicles to
circumvent regulations that prevent them borrowing directly.
These vehicles borrow money against the land injected into them
and guarantees by local governments, said Shih.
Chinese officials have pledged to limit the risks posed by
these vehicles. China plans to nullify guarantees provided by
local governments for some loans, said Yan Qingmin, head of the
banking regulator’s Shanghai branch, March 5.
The World Bank said on March 17 that China, the world’s
third-biggest economy, needs to raise interest rates to help
contain the risk of a property bubble and allow a stronger yuan
to damp inflation.
“Massive monetary stimulus” risks triggering large asset-
price increases, a housing bubble, and bad debts, from financing
local-government projects, the Washington-based World Bank said
in its quarterly report on China. The World Bank raised its
economic growth forecast for China this year to 9.5 percent from
9 percent in January.
The financial burden of those measures on local governments
means that “loose liquidity conditions” will persist for
longer than they should, said Shen Minggao, a Citigroup Inc.
economist in Hong Kong.
Any effort to quickly exit stimulus policies would lead to
“an immediate increase in non-performing loans in the banking
sector,” he said. “To avoid a credit crisis, Chinese
authorities may have to delay a policy exit in the hope that
time remedies the pain.”

Greek Banks Plead for More Aid in Debt Crisis

It’s all falling into place with the austerity measures taking their toll on the financial equity that supports the credit structure in a euro wide banking system that does not have credible deposit insurance.

Greek banks plead for more aid in debt crisis

By George Georgiopoulos and Harry Papachristou

Apr. 7 (Reuters) — Greek banks, hit by a series of credit rating downgrades linked to the country’s debt crisis, have asked the government for more financial support, Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said on Wednesday.

“The banks have asked to use the remaining funds of the support plan,” he told reporters, referring to a package first agreed by the previous conservative government in 2008.

About 17 billion euros ($22.72 billion), mainly in state guarantees, remain in the 28 billion euro support scheme, launched to help Greek lenders cope with the global credit crisis.

The Central Bank of Greece said non-performing loans in the banking system rose further in the last quarter of 2009, bringing the full-year ratio to 7.7 percent.

The banks’ plea for extra help highlighted the problems facing the entire Greek economy, which is expected to contract by at least 2 percent this year, partly as a result of austerity measures imposed to slash a huge budget deficit.

IMF officials began talks in Athens on Wednesday on implementing the austerity plan, just as the latest market jitters over Greece’s ability to manage its debt mountain eased slightly, despite uncertainty over a euro zone rescue plan.

China’s foreign debt grows 14.4% in 2009: SAFE

This is interesting- borrowing to add to reserves?

The debt has to be at higher interest rates than what they earn on reserves.

China’s foreign debt grows 14.4% in 2009: SAFE

(Xinhua) China’s outstanding external debt reached $428.6 billion by the end of 2009, up 14.4 percent from a year earlier, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) said. The figure excluded Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Macao SAR, and Taiwan. The country’s registered foreign debt was equivalent to $266.95 billion by the end of last year, up 2.5 percent from the 2008 level. Outstanding trade credits stood at $161.7 billion, according to the SAFE. China’s foreign debt service ratio was 2.87 percent, while the foreign debt ratio and liability ratio stood at 32.15 percent and 8.73 percent, respectively, the SAFE said. Mid- and long-term external debt, accounting for 39.52 percent of all outstanding foreign debt, totaled $169.39 billion by 2009. Short-term external debt rose 23 percent to $259.26 billion year-on-year by the end of 2009, accounting for 60.48 percent of the total.

Tom Hickey on MMT

Tom Hickey Reply:
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 am

MDM, the key here is the MMT concept of vertical and horizontal in relation to money creation. This is sometimes called exogenous (outside) and endogenous (inside).

When the government “spends,” the Treasury disburses the funds by crediting bank accounts. Settlement involves transferring reserves from the Treasury’s account at the Fed to the recipient’s bank. The resulting increase in the recipient’s deposit account has no corresponding liability in the banking system. This creation is called “vertical,” or exogenous to the banking system. Since there is no corresponding liability in the banking system, this results in an increase of nongovernment net financial assets.

When banks create money by extending credit (loans create deposits), this occurs completely within the banking system and results in a liability for the bank (the deposit) and a corresponding asset (the loan). The customer has an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). This nets to zero.

Thus vertical money created by the government affects net financial assets and horizontal money created by banks does not, although its use in the economy as productive capital can increase real assets.

The mistake that is usually made is comparing what happens in the horizontal system with what happens at the level of government accounting. At the horizontal level, debt is the basis for horizontal money creation. Therefore, it is often assumed that debt must be the basis for the creation of money by government currency issuance. This is not the case.

Reserve accounting uses the standard accounting identities, but the meaning of “liability” is not “debt.” The husband-wife analogy for CB-Treasury accounting relationships is apt. Since a husband and wife are responsible for each others debts, neither can be indebted to the other. That is to say, reserve accounting is a fiction that does not represent real relationships, such as exist between a creditor and debtor in the horizontal system.

Moreover, government debt is not true debt either. At the macro level, the reserves that are transferred to banks through government disbursement are used to buy Tsy’s. That is, when a Tsy is bought, this involves a transfer of reserves from the buyer’s bank’s reserve account at the Fed to the government’s account (consolidating CB and Treasury as “government”).

When the Tsy’s are sold or redeemed, the reserves that were “stored” at interest are simply switched back, creating a deposit again. It’s pretty much the same as buying and redeeming a CD. It’s just a switch from demand to time back to demand in a bank account, and a switch between reserves and securities at the government level. That is to say, the government doesn’t have to draw on revenue, borrow, or sell assets to cover its “debt,” as households and firms do. It’s just a matter of crediting and debiting accounts on the (consolidated) government books, even though it may appear that there is a financial relationship occurring between the CB and Treasury due to the accounting. However, it’s just a fiction.

Therefore, the key to understanding MMT is this vertical-horizontal relationship. When one understands this, then Abba Lerner’s principles of functional finance become obvious. (1) Currency issuance through government disbursement is used to increase nongovernment net financial assets, and taxation withdraws net financial assets from nongovernment. (2) Debt issuance by the Treasury is a monetary operation for draining reserves to permit the CB to hit its target rate.

These principles are then applied to Y+C+I+G+NX to balance nominal aggregate demand with real output capacity in order to achieve full capacity utilization, hence, full employment, along with price stability. This is based not on theory requiring assumptions but on operational reality that can be represented using data, standard accounting identities, and stock-flow consistent macro models.

All of this and much more is explained in considerable detail at Bill Mitchell’s billy blog

Gold Lending

Gold has been lent to short sellers ever since I can remember. We had a lending operation at Banker’s Trust in the 1970, and it might go back thousands of years as well. So this is nothing new. Lending gold is nothing more than selling it for spot delivery and buying it for forward delivery. And if you hold gold lending it’s a way to make money with very little risk. You lend it to someone who gives you the cash as collateral and the price for the guy borrowing the gold and the incentive for you to lend it is the below market interest rate you have to pay on the cash. And when rates are near 0 as they are now, you get the cash collateral plus a fee to lend that gold, or you don’t do it. It’s also marked to market, so there’s little risk unless the short seller goes belly up if prices spike enough. (I’m sure the last run up to over 1,200 probably saw lots of short sellers getting forced out and scrambling to cover.)

And a lot of the short sellers are gold producers. They sell for forward delivery because they have to mine it and refine it before they can deliver it. And they don’t want to take the chance prices might fall, but would rather lock their profits in upfront. So if their cost of production is maybe $300/oz the might sell gold for 6 months forward or more for over $1,100 and be happy locking that in. And if they have bank loans financing their gold operations the lender may insist they do that.

So when buyers want their gold right away and producers won’t have it ready for 6 months, what brings those people together? It’s the holders of gold lending their gold in the spot market so buyers can get it right away, and then the lender getting the gold back 6 months later when the producers make their deliveries. Market forces organize this process and with current record world gold production it’s no surprise that lenders are very low on inventory, as only a fraction of the world’s gold is available for lending.

GATA is complaining that the US govt. has lent gold and is therefore artificially keeping the price of gold lower than it would otherwise be. There is some truth to the idea that lending keeps spot gold prices lower than otherwise, as it keeps the spreads between spot an forward prices ‘in line’ but you can just as easily say that lenders selling spot and buying forward keep the forward prices higher than otherwise.

So all that gold ‘missing’ from depositories is in the form of cash in the depositories and contracts to buy gold in the forward markets. And with gold being produced in record amounts for untold years into the future it’s hard to say for sure that there isn’t enough gold coming to market over that time to satisfy the demand.

One last thing. The fee paid to gold holders to lend their gold is a market price for that service. At some price holders of gold will take cash collateral, fully marked to market, plus a fee to lend their gold. It’s voluntary. It adds to their incomes. It more than pays for their storage charges. So if the desire to hold gold and not lend it goes up, that’s expressed in the higher fee paid to people who do lend. So if you watch that fee you can see the supply and demand for lending rising and falling.

Hope this helps!

It’s Ponzimonium in the Gold Market

By Nathan Lewis

We’ve had a string of amazing revelations recently regarding the world’s precious metals market. This is important stuff for anyone (like me) who holds gold as a means to avoid currency turmoil and counterparty risk.

This news has been actively suppressed in the mainstream media.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a U.S. government regulatory agency, held hearings in Washington D.C. in late March regarding position limits in the futures market.

People involved in the markets have known/suspected for years that they have been manipulated by certain large entities, notably JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Analysts like silver maven, Ted Butler, hedge fund giant, Eric Sprott, and the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) have been collecting evidence of this manipulation for years.

These hearings were supposed to be a non-event. However, despite the media lock-down, the word is getting out.

The CFTC, like the SEC, is a conflicted agency. Some people, notably Chairman Gary Gensler and Commissioner Bart Chilton, seem to want to clean up the sleaze, fraud and corruption.

The CFTC even invited GATA’s Bill Murphy and Adrian Douglas to make statements. Would you be surprised to learn that the cameras had a “technical malfunction” during Bill Murphy’s statement, which magically righted itself immediately after he finished?

After the hearing, according to Douglas, Murphy was contacted by several major media outlets for more interviews. Within 24 hours, all the interviews were canceled. All of them.

You can follow the links above to see the research that Butler, Sprott and GATA have done over the years. That was only one part of the emerging story.

The second part is the appearance of London metals trader and now whistleblower Andrew Maguire, who understands JP Morgan’s manipulation scheme inside and out.

Maguire understands the process so well that he was able to describe it to the CFTC’s Bart Chilton on the phone in real time. As in: “in a few minutes, they are going to do this, and then they will do that.”

Listen to an extended interview with Maguire and GATA’s Adrian Douglas on King World News here.

Maguire has taken some personal risks to tell all this in public. In fact, almost immediately after his initial statements, he was run over by a car while walking down the street. The driver sped away, nearly running over some other pedestrians in his haste to escape. Fortunately, Maguire survived the hit-and-run “accident” with minor injuries. What a coincidence.

The third item was during the question-and-answer session at the CFTC hearings. GATA’s Adrian Douglas.

For many years, people assumed that the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), the world’s largest gold market, was a simple bullion market. Cash for gold. However, just in the past few months, more people are realizing that there is actually very little gold within the LBMA system.

Even long-time gold specialists like Maguire have been amazed to learn that there is no gold corresponding to the vast “gold deposits” at the major LBMA banks.

During the CFTC hearings, Jeffrey Christian of CPM Group apparently informed us that the LBMA banks actually have about a hundred times more gold deposits than actual gold bullion.

(GATA on CFTC hearing revelations, including video clips.
ZeroHedge on the LBMA “paper gold ponzi”)

This means that there are thousands of clients — Asian and Middle Eastern governments and sovereign wealth funds among them — who think they own hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars of gold bullion, and are being charged storage fees on that fantasy bullion, but they really own unsecured gold loans to the banks at a negative interest rate.

There is nothing new about this. Morgan Stanley paid several million dollars in 2007 to settle claims that it had charged 22,000 clients for storage fees on silver bullion that didn’t exist.

Imagine now that you are one of these people who think they own billions of dollars of gold in an LBMA bank depository. Now you find out that this gold doesn’t really exist.

You would ask for delivery of your gold immediately. It would be a “run on the bank.”

What about things like ETFs linked to gold? Most of them also claim, as assets, these “deposits” at the LBMA banks.

The entire gold market is complete “ponzimonium,” a word popularized by the CFTC’s Bart Chilton.

This does not even take into account the tungsten gold bar counterfeit issue, which has emerged over the past year or so.

Imagine that you are an LBMA gold bank — like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs or HSBC. Your clients start asking for their gold, which you have been telling them is safely stored in your super-safe depository, but the gold doesn’t actually exist. It’s not so easy to buy it either, because none of the other LBMA members actually have any gold. Can you see the incentive to deliver a phony tungsten counterfeit instead? You might even ask your buddies in the U.S. government whether there is any gold left in Fort Knox that they could use — this being an issue of National Security and all.

Four 400 oz. LBMA standard bars were discovered to be tungsten counterfeits in Hong Kong. This set off a wave of investigations, turning up more such phony bars worldwide.

These were very high quality counterfeits. According to some investigators, it appears that the original source and creator of these counterfeits was the U.S. government itself. Some people put the possible number of counterfeit bars out there in the hundreds of thousands!

Let’s say you are an Asian or Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund taking delivery on a few billion dollars’ worth of gold bullion. You find out that you were given a bunch of phony tungsten by an LBMA bank, whose original source was the U.S. government itself.

Heck, I’d be pissed. I might even want to do something about it.

(Saturday Night Live approximates the Chinese reaction to U.S. government scams and lies.)

There is an easy way to sidestep all the scams, frauds, and phony nonsense. Take delivery on your bullion, whether a 1 oz. Kruggerand or a truckload of 400 oz. institutional bars. Put it in an independent, insured depository that is not affiliated with any bank. Assay all the holdings for tungsten counterfeits. Then audit it periodically, for exact serial numbers and specified weights.

When will the music stop on this merry-go-round of lies and corruption? Who knows. But you can take your seat now, while they are still easy to come by. I suspect those who do not act in advance will eventually find that they are victims of the Ponzimonium.

What if you don’t have any gold, and have no interest in owning any? This could affect you too.

Ultimately, a lot of these “gold suppression” schemes amount to dollar-support schemes. Many of the same games were played in the late 1960s, the days of the London Gold Pool.

The London Gold Pool was an agreement among world central banks to stabilize the gold market at $35/oz. This was really an attempt to stabilize the dollar, which tended to decline in value due to the Keynesian “easy money” policies popular in those days (and today as well).

These Keynesian “easy money” policies have consequences. You can’t “easy money” your way to prosperity. Prosperity is built on “hard money” — money that is unchanging in value.

The London Gold Pool eventually blew up, of course, and the dollar fell to about 1/24th of its original value, hitting $850/oz. in 1980. This dollar decline produced a horrible decade of inflation, during the 1970s. We spent most of the 1980s and 1990s just recovering from that disaster.

Click below for a graph of U.S. Treasury interest rates from 1955 to 2005

View image

Thus, when the “New London Gold Pool” blows up, we might find that the dollar decline that has been going on since 2001 could accelerate dramatically.

You would be surprised how little most big hedge funds know about gold. But they do know the scent of blood in the water. And they learn quick.

Citibank saga draft

The Unspoken Macro of the Citibank Saga

I’m writing this because it’s how it is and I haven’t seen it written elsewhere.

Let’s assume, for simplicity of the math, Citibank pre crisis had $100 billion private capital, $900 billion in FDIC insured deposits, and $1trillion in loans (assets), which is a capital ratio of 10%. (The sub debt is part of capital. And notice this makes banks public/private partnerships, 10% private and 90% public. Ring a bell?)

This means once Citibank loses more than $100 billion, the FDIC has to write the check for any and all losses.
So if all the remaining loans go bad and become worthless, the FDIC writes the check for the entire $900 billion.

Then the crisis hits, and, again for simplicity of the math, lets assume Citibank has to realize $50 billion in losses. Now their private capital is down to only $50 billion from the original $100 billion.

This drops Citibank’s capital ratio to just over 5%, as they now have only $50 billion in private capital and 950 billion in loan value remaining as assets. So now if Citibank loses only $50 billion more the FDIC has to start writing checks, up to the same max of $900 billion.

But now Citibank’s capital ratio is below the prescribed legal limit. The FDIC needs a larger amount of private capital to give it a larger cushion against possible future losses before it has to write the check. So it’s supposed to declare Citibank insolvent, take it over, reorganize it, sell it, liquidate the pieces, etc. as it sees fit under current banking law. But the Congress and the administration don’t want that to happen, so Treasury Secretary Paulson comes up with a plan. The Treasury, under the proposed TARP program, will ‘inject’ $50 billion of capital in various forms, with punitive terms and conditions, into Citibank to restore its 10% capital ratio.

So Obama flies in, McCain flies in, they have the votes, they don’t have the votes, the Dow is moving hundreds of a points up and down with the possible vote, millions are losing their jobs as America heads for the sidelines to see if Congress can save the world. Finally the TARP passes, hundreds of billions of dollars are approved and added to the federal deficit, with everyone believing we are borrowing the funds from China for our grand children to pay back. And the Treasury bought $50 billion in Citibank stock, with punitive terms and conditions, to restore their capital ratio and save the world.

So then how does Citibank’s capital structure look? They still have the same $50 billion in capital which takes any additional losses first. Then, should additional losses exceed that $50 billion, the Treasury starts writing checks, instead of the FDIC. What’s the difference??? It’s all government, and the FDIC is legally backstopped by the treasury, and taxes banks to try to stay in the black. (riddle, what begins with g and is authorized to tax?)