Home » Posts tagged 'Wealth'
Tag Archives: Wealth
Five Steps To Help You Avoid Investment Fraud | Bob Stammers
Five Steps To Help You Avoid Investment Fraud | Bob Stammers.
Bob Stammers
CFA, Director of Investor Education
On the fifth anniversary of Bernie Madoff’s conviction, it might be tempting to try and forget about investment fraud. After all, one of the most notorious con men in modern history has been locked away until Nov. 14, 2139. So does that mean investors are safe from fraud?
Unfortunately, there will always be bad apples in the financial system and if you have money to invest then you are vulnerable to potential fraudulent behaviour. Latest figures from the Canadian Securities Administrators show that 56 per cent of Canadians agree they are just as likely to be a victim of investment fraud as anyone else.
The following five steps will help to minimize your chances of falling victim to investment fraud and limit your exposure in the unfortunate case that you do.
1. Clearly understand the investment strategy
The venerable portfolio manager, Peter Lynch, consistently advises people to invest only in what they understand. Investors should be alert to the possibility that complex jargon often hides suspicious inconsistencies. Some investment opportunities appear alluring simply because they are described in impressive, complicated terms and of course as investors we want to appear smart so we often nod, smile and agree to something we don’t actually understand. Investment strategies and financial products should be clear and understandable, and the professional advisers that you hire should ensure you’re comfortable with them before you take the plunge.
2. Be wary of “sure things”, quick returns and special access
Legitimate investment professionals do not promise sure bets; remember there is no such thing! Scammers often make the combination of safety and high returns seem plausible by granting you “special access” based on your relationship with a mutual acquaintance or affiliation with a specific group. Be sure to judge investments on their merits alone — do your best to ignore the social pressure that can often lead investors to misery and remember if it seems too good to be true, it probably is!
3. Is the investment subject to regulation and what if any protection does it provide?
Regulation varies by country and investment type. Hedge funds, for example, are less regulated than mutual funds and off-shore advisers may be subject to less stringent supervision in some countries. Regulation does not mean lower risk. A common mistake that investors make is to assume that because their investments are regulated the risks involved are reduced. Before making an investment decision, make sure you are aware of the relevant regulation and then you can fully assess the merits of the investment. It’s still possible to lose money in well-regulated markets so you need to make sure your investment decisions match your overall risk profile.
4. Trust, but verify
Ultimately, the reliability of any operation is predicated on the integrity and competence of its people. Remember that the company you choose to invest with could be overseeing your assets for many years to come so it’s important to build a trusting relationship with them. One of the best ways to do this is to adopt a “trust, but verify” mentality. Look for professionals who have achieved a mark of distinction in their career–like the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation–and professionals who abide by a Code of Ethics that requires them to place clients’ interests ahead of their own. Trust is built with consistency so looking at past experience can reveal a lot – what is their investment track record, can they provide references, are they registered with the national regulator? The more you know, the easier it is to detect a scam!
5. Don’t forget to use standard investing discipline
When the conversation turns to fraud, investors can sometimes forget that tried-and-tested investment management principles still need to be applied. Even though diversification is one of the most fundamental and enduring investment principles, many investors forget to ensure their assets are diversified widely enough. Doing so will help to limit the catastrophe associated with investment fraud but it is also more likely to provide a higher average return at lower average risk. Make sure that all investment decisions you make are aligning with your long-term financial goals and never invest in anything you don’t fully understand.
When navigating the markets, it will always be important to keep a watchful eye out for fraud. Throughout history, whenever money is involved there will tend to be an opportunity for unscrupulous people to take advantage of others. CFA Institute provides some helpful tools to educate investors on how to make informed investment decisions, so be prepared, do your homework and remember that taking steps to avoid fraud is part of a good investment strategy.
Share this:
Five Steps To Help You Avoid Investment Fraud | Bob Stammers
Five Steps To Help You Avoid Investment Fraud | Bob Stammers.
Bob Stammers
CFA, Director of Investor Education
On the fifth anniversary of Bernie Madoff’s conviction, it might be tempting to try and forget about investment fraud. After all, one of the most notorious con men in modern history has been locked away until Nov. 14, 2139. So does that mean investors are safe from fraud?
Unfortunately, there will always be bad apples in the financial system and if you have money to invest then you are vulnerable to potential fraudulent behaviour. Latest figures from the Canadian Securities Administrators show that 56 per cent of Canadians agree they are just as likely to be a victim of investment fraud as anyone else.
The following five steps will help to minimize your chances of falling victim to investment fraud and limit your exposure in the unfortunate case that you do.
1. Clearly understand the investment strategy
The venerable portfolio manager, Peter Lynch, consistently advises people to invest only in what they understand. Investors should be alert to the possibility that complex jargon often hides suspicious inconsistencies. Some investment opportunities appear alluring simply because they are described in impressive, complicated terms and of course as investors we want to appear smart so we often nod, smile and agree to something we don’t actually understand. Investment strategies and financial products should be clear and understandable, and the professional advisers that you hire should ensure you’re comfortable with them before you take the plunge.
2. Be wary of “sure things”, quick returns and special access
Legitimate investment professionals do not promise sure bets; remember there is no such thing! Scammers often make the combination of safety and high returns seem plausible by granting you “special access” based on your relationship with a mutual acquaintance or affiliation with a specific group. Be sure to judge investments on their merits alone — do your best to ignore the social pressure that can often lead investors to misery and remember if it seems too good to be true, it probably is!
3. Is the investment subject to regulation and what if any protection does it provide?
Regulation varies by country and investment type. Hedge funds, for example, are less regulated than mutual funds and off-shore advisers may be subject to less stringent supervision in some countries. Regulation does not mean lower risk. A common mistake that investors make is to assume that because their investments are regulated the risks involved are reduced. Before making an investment decision, make sure you are aware of the relevant regulation and then you can fully assess the merits of the investment. It’s still possible to lose money in well-regulated markets so you need to make sure your investment decisions match your overall risk profile.
4. Trust, but verify
Ultimately, the reliability of any operation is predicated on the integrity and competence of its people. Remember that the company you choose to invest with could be overseeing your assets for many years to come so it’s important to build a trusting relationship with them. One of the best ways to do this is to adopt a “trust, but verify” mentality. Look for professionals who have achieved a mark of distinction in their career–like the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation–and professionals who abide by a Code of Ethics that requires them to place clients’ interests ahead of their own. Trust is built with consistency so looking at past experience can reveal a lot – what is their investment track record, can they provide references, are they registered with the national regulator? The more you know, the easier it is to detect a scam!
5. Don’t forget to use standard investing discipline
When the conversation turns to fraud, investors can sometimes forget that tried-and-tested investment management principles still need to be applied. Even though diversification is one of the most fundamental and enduring investment principles, many investors forget to ensure their assets are diversified widely enough. Doing so will help to limit the catastrophe associated with investment fraud but it is also more likely to provide a higher average return at lower average risk. Make sure that all investment decisions you make are aligning with your long-term financial goals and never invest in anything you don’t fully understand.
When navigating the markets, it will always be important to keep a watchful eye out for fraud. Throughout history, whenever money is involved there will tend to be an opportunity for unscrupulous people to take advantage of others. CFA Institute provides some helpful tools to educate investors on how to make informed investment decisions, so be prepared, do your homework and remember that taking steps to avoid fraud is part of a good investment strategy.
Share this:
Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution | Zero Hedge
Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution | Zero Hedge.
At first we thought Reuters had been punk’d in its article titled “EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap” which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true. Sadly, because everything that we warned about in “There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis” back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters’ own words, “the savings of the European Union’s 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says.” What is left unsaid is that the “usage” will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the “union”, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to “wean” the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years – something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghi’s Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that “the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.”
The solution? “The Commission will ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing”, the document said.”
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
The document said the “appropriateness” of the EU capital and liquidity rules for long-term financing will be reviewed over the next two years, a process likely to be scrutinized in the United States and elsewhere to head off any risk of EU banks gaining an unfair advantage.
But wait: there’s more!
Inspired by the recently introduced “no risk, guaranteed return” collectivized savings instrument in the US better known as MyRA, Europe will also complete a study by the end of this year on thefeasibility of introducing an EU savings account, open to individuals whose funds could be pooled and invested in small companies.
Because when corporations refuse to invest money in Capex, who will invest? Why you, dear Europeans. Whether you like it or not.
But wait, there is still more!
Additionally, Europe is seeking to restore the primary reason why Europe’s banks are as insolvent as they are: securitizations, which the persuasive salesmen and sexy saleswomen of Goldman et al sold to idiot European bankers, who in turn invested the money or widows and orphans only to see all of it disappear.
It is also seeking to revive the securitization market, which pools loans like mortgages into bonds that banks can sell to raise funding for themselves or companies. The market was tarnished by the financial crisis when bonds linked to U.S. home loans began defaulting in 2007, sparking the broader global markets meltdown over the ensuing two years.
The document says the Commission will “take into account possible future increases in the liquidity of a number of securitization products” when it comes to finalizing a new rule on what assets banks can place in their new liquidity buffers. This signals a possible loosening of the definition of eligible assets from the bloc’s banking watchdog.
Because there is nothing quite like securitizing feta cheese-backed securities and selling it to a whole new batch of widows and orphans.
And topping it all off is a proposal to address a global change in accounting principles that will make sure that an accurate representation of any bank’s balance sheet becomes a distant memory:
More controversially, the Commission will consider whether the use of fair value or pricing assets at the going rate in a new globally agreed accounting rule “is appropriate, in particular regarding long-term investing business models”.
To summarize: forced savings “mobilization”, the introduction of a collective and involuntary CapEx funding “savings” account, the return and expansion of securitization, and finally, tying it all together, is a change to accounting rules that will make the entire inevitable catastrophe smells like roses until it all comes crashing down.
So, aside from all this, Europe is “fixed.”
The only remaining question is: why leak this now? Perhaps it’s simply because the reallocation of “cash on the savings account sidelines” in the aftermath of the Cyprus deposit confiscation, into risk assets was not foreceful enough? What better way to give it a much needed boost than to leak that everyone’s cash savings are suddenly fair game in Europe’s next great wealth redistribution strategy.
Share this:
The 4 Pillars of Poverty
Posted Feb 5, 2014.
Ithink it is remarkable that, despite the growth the US has enjoyed since the 1960s, the poverty rate has barely changed. Writing for the Wall Street Journal last month under the title “How the War on Poverty Was Lost”, Robert Rector notes that: “Fifty years and $20 trillion later, LBJ’s goal to help the poor become self-supporting has failed.” He writes further:
On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. “This administration today, here and now,” he thundered, “declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”
Fifty years later, we’re losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”
…LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an “investment” that would “return its cost manifold to the entire economy.” But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.
My impression is that there are far more “poor” people today as a percentage of the population than there were in the 1960s, because lower middle-class and middle-class people have moved into the ranks of the poor. (Since 2007, the bottom 50% by wealth percentile lost more than 40% of their net worth and their debts are up 16%.) This may be a factor that explains the still muted consumer confidence at a time when stock investors’ sentiment is at its highest level since 1987.
In my opinion, the increase in poverty rests on four pillars: cultural and social factors, educational issues, excessive debt, and government handouts, which encourage people not to work. Other factors include: international competition, which keeps wages down; and monetary policies, which create bubbles and impoverish the majority.
As an example, social factors and government handouts led to a sharp increase in out-of-wedlock births. In the 1960s in the US, out-of-wedlock births comprised only 5.3% of total births; in 1980, 18.4%; and today, over 40%. Babies born out of wedlock are likely to have fewer educational opportunities than those raised in two-parent families.
This is one reason; educational standards have also slipped – certainly relative to the rest of the world – due to poor policies. Of course, by far the worst cause of rising poverty rates is monetary policies that have encouraged credit growth, enslaving poor people with debts and financing an increase in entitlement programs by the government.
According to Rector, “The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964. If converted to cash, current means tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.”
It is no wonder, therefore, that with these generous social programs, largely financed now by the Fed, single women have been encouraged to have babies without the “inconvenience” of having a husband.
The problem, however, as I mentioned above, is that (again according to Rector) the Heritage Foundation has found in a study that “children raised in the growing number of single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty than children reared by married parents of the same education level. Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to suffer from a broad array of social and behavioral problems. The consequences continue into adulthood: Children raised by single parents are three times more likely to end up in jail and 50% more likely to be poor as adults.”
Now, I realise that it would be unfair to place the entire blame on the Fed for the failure of entitlement programs. However, the Fed and other central banks around the world have been enablers of Big Government and poor economic policies. As John Taylor (a professor of economics at Stanford University, and one of the few economists who appears to be sane) opined in the Wall Street Journal about the various secular stagnation hypotheses:
In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.
I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn’t be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy [emphasis added]
Concerning increased regulation it is clear that “Big Business” loves increased regulation. Take, as an example, the increasingly complex tax laws (click the chart to enlarge). Large corporations can hire an army of accountants, lawyers, tax consultants, and lobbyists in order to reduce their tax burden. But, what about the small business owner?
He is at the mercy of some tax collector who can waste his time endlessly with repeated audits. The same goes for other regulatory requirements, which lead to less competition and favour large business groups.
Many of my friends who own independent small money management firms are being forced to close down their businesses, merge, or sell to larger financial institutions because of increased regulation. The more regulation there is, the more likely it becomes an inhibiting factor for innovation.
Furthermore, I am certain that the secular stagnation hypothesis is another attempt by the government to justify more interventions with fiscal and monetary policies into the free market.
The question is, of course, who are the governments? Will Durant opined in The Age of Louis XIV that the “men who can manage men manage the men who can only manage things, and the men who can manage money manage all”. In Lessons of History, he wrote:
…the bankers, watching the trends in agriculture, industry, and trade, inviting and directing the flow of capital, putting our money doubly and trebly to work, controlling loans and interest and enterprise, running great risks to make great gains, rise to the top of the economic pyramid.
From the Medici of Florence and the Fuggers of Augsburg to the Rothschilds of Paris and London and the Morgans of New York, bankers have sat in councils of governments, financing wars and popes, and occasionally sparking a revolution. Perhaps it is one secret of their power that, having studied the fluctuations of prices, they know that history is inflationary, and that money is the last thing a wise man will hoard [emphasis added].
I suppose that one solace for poor people, in view of this rather sobering fact, may be these words of Frank McKinney Hubbard:
“It’s pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed.”
Regards,
Marc Faber
for The Daily Reckoning
Ed. Note: Not discounting the point Mr. Faber is trying to make with this final thought, even if wealth can’t bring you happiness, it can – at the very least – help offer a little piece of mind to those in search of happiness. And that’s why we write the Daily Reckoning – to try to help you live a wealthier, healthier, and happier life than you could ever imagine. And it doesn’t take much. The Daily Reckoning offers you regular chances to discover some of the world’s most lucrative and overlooked investment plays. And it is completely FREE. So you’ve got nothing to lose by signing up. Click here now to see what all the buzz is about.
Share this:
Great Depression Deja Vu – “A Chicken In Every Pot And A Maserati In Every Garage” | Zero Hedge
Great Depression Deja Vu – “A Chicken In Every Pot And A Maserati In Every Garage” | Zero Hedge.
In 1928, just as income inequality was surging, stocks were soaring and monetary distortions were rearing their ugly head, the now infamous words “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” were integral to Herbert Hoover’s 1928 presidential run and a “vote for prosperity,” all before the market’s epic collapse. Fast forward 86 years and income inequality is at those same heady levels, stocks are at recorderer highs, the President is promising to hike the minimum wage to a “living wage” capable of filling every house with McChicken sandwiches and now… to top it all off – Maserati unveils their (apparent) “everyone should own a Maserati” commercial. It would seem that chart analogs are not the only reminder of the pre-crash era exuberance and its recovery mirage and massive monetary distortions.
The last time the top 10% of the US income distribution had such a large proportion of the entire nation’s income was the 1920s – a period that culminated in the Great Depression and a collapse in that exuberance.
“Wealth effect” – check
“Today there is a tremendous amount of monetary distortion, on par with the 1929 stock market and certainly the peak of 2007, and many others,” warns Universa’s Mark Spitznagel.
and “a Maserati in every garage”
It’s a great looking car and emotionally imploring but… did they really just suggest (subliminally of course) that such luxury is to be had by all?
Perhaps a gentle reminder of the reality for 99.99% of Americans…compared to the Maserati buyer…
As Mark Spitznagel warned:
The reality is, when distortion is created, the only way out is to let the natural homeostasis take over. The purge that occurs after massive distortion is painful, but ultimately, it’s far better and healthier for the system.
While that may sound rather heartless, it’s actually the best and least destructive in the long run.
Look what happened in the 1930s, when the actions of the government prolonged what should have been a quick purge. Instead, the government prevented the natural rebuilding process from working, which made matters so much worse.
Share this:
The Difference Between Gold And Bitcoin, As Explained By Elliott’s Paul Singer | Zero Hedge
The Difference Between Gold And Bitcoin, As Explained By Elliott’s Paul Singer | Zero Hedge.
Some perspective on the two “alternative currencies” – bullion and bitcoin -from the man who has run a hedge fund for 37 years and currently manages $23.3 billion, Elliott’s Paul Singer.
Bitcoin
After 37 years in the investment-management business, we are not easily shocked. However, two things about bitcoin have shocked us recently. One is that bitcoin and some of its fellow alternative currencies are finding such favor among investors while gold (the only real alternative currency) is languishing. The second is that the most heated investment-related conversation we have had in many years was with a young person who, when told of our mild dubiousness toward bitcoin, basically lost it and started yelling in its defense. Bitcoin comes with passion and belief – at least at the moment.
There is no more reason to believe that bitcoin, a computer-generated, algorithm-driven currency of supposed limited supply, will stand the test of time than that governments will protect the value of government-created fiat money. One difference: Bitcoin is newer and we always look at babies with hope.
If you are looking for an alternative currency, look into gold. It has stood the test of thousands of years as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Better yet, it is not just a computer entry out in the ether somewhere, and it was last seen available at a good price.
Bitcoin and its relatives speak to understandable impulses (against big government, in favor of freedom and modernity), but we do not see this particular experiment lasting. At least you have to work really hard to dig gold out of the ground.
Share this:
Russian Bank Halts All Cash Withdrawals | Zero Hedge
Russian Bank Halts All Cash Withdrawals | Zero Hedge.
It would appear the fears of a global bank run are spreading. From HSBC’s limiting large cash withdrawals (for your own good) to Lloyds ATMs going down, Bloomberg reports that ‘My Bank’ – one of Russia’s top 200 lenders by assets – has introduced a complete ban on cash withdrawals until next week. While the Ruble has been losing ground rapidly recently, we suspect few have been expecting bank runs in Russia. Russia sovereign CDS had recently weakned to 4-month wides at 192bps.
Via Bloomberg,
Lender has introduced complete ban on cash withdrawals until end of week, news agency reports, citing unidentified person in call center.
Bank spokeswoman declined to comment by phone
My Bank is top 200 lender by assets: Prime
NOTE: Central bank has revoked about 30 banking licenses since July 1 when Elvira Nabiullina succeeded Sergei Ignatiev as governor, compared with three in the firt half of the year
Interestingly, Russia’s biggest lender Sberbank has seen a 8.7% rise in deposits in December… it seems the Russian’s are realizing that bank deposits are nothing more than risky loans to highly levered entities…
Share this:
oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: Want to Reduce Income/Wealth Inequality? Abolish the Engine of Inequality, the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.
The issue of income/wealth inequality is finally moving into the mainstream: which is to say, politicos of every ideological stripe now feel obliged to bleat platitudes and express cardboard “concern” for the plight of the non-millionaires with whom they personally have little contact.
I have addressed the complex causes of rising income/wealth inequality for years.Indeed, my book Why Things Are Falling Apart and What We Can Do About It is largely about this very issue.
Here is a selection of the dozens of entries I have written about rising income/wealth inequality.
Income Inequality in the U.S. (August 22, 2008)
Made in U.S.A.: Wealth Inequality (July 15, 2011)
Let’s Pretend Financialization Hasn’t Killed the Economy (March 8, 2012)
Income Disparity and Education (September 26, 2013)
Is America’s Social Contract Broken? (July 17, 2013)
Rising Inequality and Poverty: Can They Be Fixed? (August 15, 2013)
How Cheap Credit Fuels Income/Wealth Inequality (May 30, 2013)
Why Is Debt the Source of Income Inequality and Serfdom? It’s the Interest, Baby(November 27, 2013)
While many key drivers of declining income are structural and not “fixable” with conventional policies (globalization of labor and the “end of work” replacement of human labor by robots, automation and software, to name the two most important ones), the financial policies that create wealth/income inequality are made right here in the U.S.A. by the Federal Reserve.
We should start addressing wealth/income inequality by eliminating the primary source of wealth/income inequality in the U.S.: the Federal Reserve.
The Fed generates wealth/income inequality in three basic ways:
1. Zero-interest rates (ZIRP) and limitless liquidity creates cheap credit that enables the super-wealthy to buy rentier income streams that increase their wealth.
The closer one is to this gargantuan flood of “free money for cronies,” the wealthier one can become by borrowing from the Fed for near-zero and buying assets that yield returns well above zero. If your speculative bet goes bad, the Fed will bail you out.
2. Zero-interest rates (ZIRP) and limitless liquidity feeds financialization, broadly speaking, the commoditization of debt and debt instruments. The process of commoditizing (securitizing) every loan or debt greatly increases the income and wealth of the financial sector and the state (government), which reaps higher taxes from skyrocketing financial profits, bubbles and rising asset values (love those higher property taxes, baby!).
There is no persuasive evidence that cheap credit enables legitimate wealth creation, while there is abundant evidence that cheap credit fuels speculation, credit bubbles and a variety of financier schemes and scams that create temporary phantom wealth for crony capitalists and impoverishes everyone who wasn’t in on the scam.
The housing bubble was not just a credit bubble; it was a credit bubble enabled by the securitization/financialization of the primary household asset, the home.Those closest to the Fed-enabled flow of credit reaped the gains of this financialization (or were subsequently bailed out by the Fed after the bubble burst), while the households that believed the Fed’s shuck-and-jive (“There is no bubble”) suffered losses when the bubble popped.
This chart of income inequality depicts the correlation between the Fed’s easy-money credit expansion and the extraordinary increase in income inequality.Please note the causal relation between income and wealth; though it is certainly possible to squander one’s entire income, those households with large incomes tend to acquire financial wealth. Those with access to cheap credit are able to buy income-producing assets that add to their wealth.
Financialization is most readily manifested in the FIRE sectors: finance, insurance, real estate.
You can see the results of financialization in financial profits, which soared in the era of securitization, shadow banking, asset bubbles and loosened or ignored regulation:
Here’s how cheap, abundant credit–supposedly the key engine of growth, according to the Federal Reserve–massively increases wealth inequality: the wealthy have much greater access to credit than the non-wealthy, and they use this vastly greater credit to buy productive assets that generate income streams that increase their income and wealth.
As their income and wealth increase, their debt loads decline.
The family home is supposed to be a store of wealth, but the financialization of housing and changing demographics have mooted that traditional assumption; the home may rise in yet another bubble or crash in another bubble bust. It is no longer a safe store of value, it is a debt-based gamble that is very easy to lose.
Credit has rendered even the upper-income middle class family debt-serfs, while credit has greatly increased the opportunities for the wealthy to buy rentier income streams. Credit used to purchase unproductive consumption creates debt-serfdom; credit used to buy rentier assets adds to wealth and income. Unfortunately the average household does not have access to the credit required to buy productive assets; only the wealthy possess that perquisite.
The Fed’s Solution to Income Stagnation: Make Everyone a Speculator (January 24, 2014)
As a direct result of Fed policy, the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer.
3. But that isn’t the end of the destructive consequences of Fed policy: the Federal Reserve has also created a neofeudal society in which debt enslaves the masses and enriches the financial Elites.
Put another way, not all wealth is created equally. Compare Steve Jobs, who became a billionaire by developing and selling “insanely great” mass-market technologies that people willingly buy because it enhances their lives, with a crony-capitalist who reaps billions in profits from risky carry trades funded by the Fed’s free-money-for-cronies policy or by selling phantom assets (mortgages, for example) to the Fed at a price far above market value.
Clearly, there is a distinction between those two fortunes: one created value, employment for thousands of people, and tremendous technological leverage for millions of ordinary people. The other enriched a handful of financiers. This financial wealth could not be conjured into existence and skimmed by Elites without the Federal Reserve.
This Fed-enabled financial wealth destroys democracy and free markets when it buys the machinery of governance. To the best of my knowledge, Jobs spent little of his time or wealth lobbying Big Government for favors, special laws eliminating competitors with regulatory hurdles, etc.
Compare that to the millions spent by the “too big to fail” banking industry to buy Congressional approval of their cartel’s grip on the nation’s throat: Buying Off Washington To Kill Financial “Reform”.
Much of the debate about wealth inequality focuses on whether the super-wealthy are “paying their fair share” of the nation’s taxes. If we refer to the point above, we see that as long as the super-wealthy can buy the machinery of governance, then they will never allow themselves to be taxed like regular tax donkeys.
Unfortunately, only the top 1/10th of 1% can “afford” this kind of Fed-funded “democracy.” As of 2007, the bottom 80% of American households held a mere 7% of these financial assets, while the top 1% held 42.7%, the top 5% holds 72% and the top 10% held fully 83%.
The income of the top 5% soared during Fed-enabled credit bubbles:
Since all these distortions originate from the Fed, the only solution is to abolish the Fed. Those who have absorbed the ceaseless propaganda believe that an economy needs a central bank to create money and manage interest rates.
This is simply wrong. The U.S. Treasury (a branch of government actually described by the Constitution, unlike the Fed) could print money just as it borrows money. Should a liquidity crisis squeeze rates higher, the Treasury has the means to create liquidity and make it available to the legitimate financial system.
All the Fed’s regulatory powers were power-grabbed from legitimate government agencies defined by the Constitution.
The Federal Reserve is the primary engine of income/wealth inequality in the U.S.Eliminate “free money for cronies,” bailouts of the “too big to fail” banks that own the Fed, manipulation of markets, the purchase of impaired private assets at high prices, and all the other tools of financialization the Fed wields to enforce its grip on the nation’s throat–in other words, abolish the Fed–and the neofeudal structure that feeds inequality will vanish along with the feudal lords that enforced it.
We don’t need to “fix” things as much as remove the obstacles that are blocking the way forward. The Federal Reserve is the primary obstacle to reducing income/wealth inequality. Those who support the Fed are supporting a neofeudal arrangement that widens the income/wealth gap by its very existence.
Share this:
Citi Warns The Greatest Monetary Experiment In The History Of The World Is Being Wound Down | Zero Hedge
As Citi’s Tom Fitzpatrick, a number of local market currencies are increasingly coming under pressure and look likely to fall even further. Whether this will turn into a dynamic as severe as 1997-1998 in unclear; however, at minimum Citi believes the “change in course” by the Fed in December (guided since May) has become a “game changer” for the EM World. The greatest monetary experiment in the history of the World is being wound down. In a globally interlinked economy it would be “naïve” to believe that the big beneficiaries of this “monetary excess” in recent years would be immune to the “punch bowl” no longer being refilled constantly.
Via Citi FX Technicals,
A look at some Subemerging currencies of interest.
There are a number of local market currencies that are increasingly coming under pressure and look likely to fall even further:
- In Latam we look at BRL,MXN,CLP and COP as well as the LACI (Latin America currency index)
- In Asia we look at PHP,KRW,SGD,IDR, TWD and MYR as well as the ADXY (Asia Dollar index)
- In CEEMA we look at TRY, ZAR and RUB
USDBRL long term chart continues to look ominous. (BRL is 33% of the LACI)
The uptrend in USDBRL that began off the double bottom formed in 2011(As the 2008 low held) has continued to develop steadily with a series of higher highs and higher lows.
Each new high (including the last one at 2.4550) has tended to result in a retracement back to test and hold the prior high.
If this trend is to continue (which we think it will) we would expect to see a successful break above that August 2013 high at 2.45 (possibly even within the next month) en route to a test of the major 2.62 resistance level. This is the major high from December 2008 and a decisive break above would complete the long term double bottom.
The target on such a development would be for a move towards 3.70 in the medium term
USDMXN starting to break out (MXN is 33% of the LACI)
USDMXN has clearly broken out of the triangle consolidation in place for most of the 2nd half of 2013.It did so while completing a bullish outside week last week after seeing strong support hold in recent months at the converged 55 and 200 week moving averages.(12.75-12.78)
It seems only a matter of time before pivotal resistance at 13.46-13.47 is likely to be tested.
A successful breach of this range should open up the way for further gains with little resistance of note evident before the downward sloping trend line at 14.09.
USDCLP now moving towards major resistance (CLP is 12% of the LACI)
Having broken through the 2011 highs at 535.75 USDCLP now looks set to rally further and test a whole range of resistance levels in the 551-556 range.
A decisive close above this range would suggest continued gains with next good resistance met around 622 (Downward sloping trend line from 2003 and 2008 peaks.
USDCOP attempting to complete a major double bottom (COP is 7% of the LACI)
A weekly close above the 1988 area would complete this formation and target a move as high as 2,200-2,225
Overall these 4 currencies make up 85% of the LACI (PEN is 5% and ARS 10%) suggesting further losses in this index are likely.
LACI (Latin America currency index) has really only 1 support level left
Having only been created in 2004 we now find that the only support level of note left in this index is the 2009 low at 89.39.(Around 3.4% below here)
We fully expect this level to be tested in the medium term and given the magnitude of moves possible in USDBRL, USDMXN, USDCLP and USDCOP new lifetime lows in this index are a distinct possibility.
USDKRW- Forming a base? (KRW is 13% of the ADXY)
For the 3rd time since 2011 USDKRW has held good support around 1,048. It now looks to be forming a double bottom with a neckline at 1,163. A break above here would target as high as 1,275.
Such a move, if seen, would complete an even bigger basing formation on a break of 1,208 that would suggest as high as 1,365-1,370
USDSGD testing good resistance (SGD is 10.27% of the ADXY)
Now testing good trend line and 200 week moving average resistance in the 1.27-1.28 area
A break through here would suggest extended gains towards horizontal resistance in the 1.3200-50 range.
A break above this latter range would open up the way for extended USD gains.
USDTWD: Breaking good resistance (TWD is 5.11% of the ADXY)
Has broken decisively above the 200 week moving average for the first time since Sept. 2009 and also completed a very clear inverted head and shoulders and horizontal trend line break (see insert).
The target for this move is at least 31.50
USDMYR: Re-testing the 2013 highs (MYR is 4.6% of the ADXY)
Having broken above good resistance around 3.21 (Double bottom neckline) USDMYR retraced back below and tested the 200 week moving average before rallying again.
It regained the 3.21 level and is now re-testing the 2013 high at 3.3377.
A break above here would put the double bottom well “back on track” and suggest a move to at least 3.48-3.50 again.
USDIDR: End of a 15 year consolidation? (IDR is 2.69% of the ADXY)
USDIDR looks simply to have been treading water for the past 15 years with signs growing that it may be in danger of break out.
A move above 13,000 would further support this view and suggest that the 1998 peak close to 17,000 could ultimately be tested again.
USDPHP breaking out (PHP is 1.64% of the ADXY)
Having broken out of the 8 year downtrend in May 2013 USDPHP has now completed a well-defined inverted head and shoulders that suggests a move towards 49.
In addition good resistance is met at 50.17 (2008 peak). A break through this latter level, if seen, would suggest continued gains to new all-time highs close to 60.
The ADXY has started to move lower again in recent weeks
So far it remains comfortably above pivotal support in the 113.60-114.00 area.
Only a break below this range would raise concerns about the potential for more extended losses in these Asian currencies.
While the currencies above only make up about 38% of this index the HKD and CNY together make up 49%. Therefore it is likely that moves in the charts above would be instrumental in determining the direction of the ADXY.
USDZAR looks like a long term breakout
We believe that USDZAR has now decisively broken out of a 12 year consolidation at the end of 2013.
We would expect a quick move up to test the 11.87 highs seen in 2008 and thereafter the 13.84 highs seen in 2001.
Ultimately we would not be surprised to see new all-time highs in the coming years.
USDTRY: The sky is the limit
Like USDZAR, we believe we have broken up out of a 12+ year consolidation. However looking at the pace of USDTRY prior to that we have no idea how far this can go, but it looks to be a long way.
As an initial level to watch, the inverted head and shoulders (see insert) targets the 2.60 area
USDRUB testing a breakout point
USDRUB is testing the 2012 high at 34.14 and a break above there suggests a move towards 36.50, the converging 2009 high and channel top
So overall in an environment of relative calm in the US Bond market in recent months the currencies above have continued to weaken albeit to different degrees. If this is as good as they can do with US Bond yields stable/drifting lower what does that suggest if and when bond yields start to push up again?
We have focused previously on how the FX markets have traded in a similar path to that seen in the late 1980’s/late 1990’s…
1989-1991: Savings and loan and housing crisis- USD index hits its low in 1992
1992-1994: Exchange rate mechanism crisis hits Europe and existing financial architecture comes apart. USD weakens in 1994 as bond yields turn off their lows.
1995: USD-Index starts to rise again as the USD and fixed income both look cheap
1997-1998: Structurally low rates in US and then Europe led to carry trades and money flowing into local markets in search for yield. During this time European currencies performed well on the back of the “convergence trade”. Peripheral European bond yields and spreads collapsed versus Germany into late 1998. Emerging markets (Asia and Russia in particular) got hit hard as money flowed out again.
We have no idea if this will turn into a dynamic as severe as 1997-1998 (This caused the Fed to back off its tightening bias in 1998 as EM markets got hit hard and LTCM went bankrupt as its convergence trades “blew up”. The US Equity market (S&P) fell over 20% in July-October 1998.)
However, at minimum we believe the “change in course” by the Fed in December (guided since May) has become a “game changer” for the EM World.
The greatest monetary experiment in the history of the World is being wound down.
In a globally interlinked economy it would be “naïve” to believe that the big beneficiaries of this “monetary excess” in recent years would be immune to the “punch bowl” no longer being refilled constantly.
Share this:
Argentine Prices Soar Following Peso Devaluation Which Only Benefits 20% Of Population | Zero Hedge
Argentine Prices Soar Following Peso Devaluation Which Only Benefits 20% Of Population | Zero Hedge.
Here is how Reuters summarized the soaring price expectations in the country under its first day with “relaxed” controls:
Argentina’s sudden relaxation of currency controls, long touted by the government as essential to the country’s financial health, has left investors wondering what’s next for Latin America’s crisis-prone No. 3 economy. Shopkeepers around the country hurriedly placed new price tags over the weekend on imported items from Cuban cigars to Asia-made televisions, reflecting a more than 20 percent drop in the official peso rate over recent days.
The consumer price surge came after the government said on Friday it would lift a two-year-old ban on Argentines buying foreign currency, allowing savers access to coveted U.S. dollars while the peso was left to plummet. Friday’s relaxation of controls came as central bank reserves fell beneath $30 billion, a level suggesting its interventions in support of the anemic peso had become unsustainable.
But allowing average wage-earners to access U.S. dollars was sure to pressure reserves as well, because the central bank is the main source of foreign exchange. The announcement on Friday ended a two-year ban on saving in the greenback.
So far inflation has been in check, mostly thanks to a price freeze imposed this month on staple foods which has kept a lid on basic supermarket items. Reuters says that “no one knows how long those prices can hold while labor unions prepare wage demands based on one of the world’s highest inflation rates.” For now, they are holding. They won’t for long, and if Argentina reports 30 percent inflation this year, as private analysts expect, it would mark the fastest rate since the 2002 crisis, when inflation reached 41 percent.
However, one thing is certain: dollar demand by the general population is sure to flood the central banks, and force reserve depletion, which have been declining at a pace of over $100MM per day and were last at $29.1 billion, at the central bank to really pick up pace. To wit:
Conditioned by previous crises to save in dollars, Argentines are obsessed with the greenback. The currency control regime ending on Monday forced people to go to the black market for dollars needed to protect them from the weak peso and fast-rising consumer prices.
Luckily for the central bank, as Bloomberg calculates, at most 20% of the population will actually be able to take advantage of the “relaxed” capital controls, because only Argentines who earn at least 7,200 pesos ($901) per month will be allowed to buy dollars, Cabinet Chief Jorge Capitanich told reporters today. And since only 20% of Argentines earned 7,000 pesos or more as of 3Q 2013,according to the National Statistics and Census Institute, it means that 80% of the population will get all the “benefits” of inflation with zero benefits from dollar purchase price protection.
And it’s not like even the rich will be able to truly benefit: he limit for FX purchases will be $2,000/month and will be taxed at 20% unless deposited with bank for at least a year.
So in other words, Argentina’s capital control “fix” was largely a sham, designed to hide the real motive behind last week’s announcement – push inflation far higher, perhaps under some persistent external influence, which in turn would lead to even more social instability. This could be a problem.
Consumer prices are a big worry on the street, but the issue has not sparked mass protests lately. Tensions could rise over the weeks ahead as labor demands pay increases in line with private economists’ 2014 inflation estimates. Fernandez has mentioned neither consumer prices nor the peso’s plight in recent speeches, leaving her cabinet to announce policy changes. The next presidential election is next year, with Fernandez unable to seek a third term.
Possible candidates from the main parties offer policies that lean in a more pro-investment direction that Fernandez’s, as the outgoing leader tucks into her last two years in power.
“If the government fails to prevent inflation from accelerating it will probably hurt the chances of presidential aspirants who are aligned with the administration,” said Ignacio Labaqui, an analyst with Medley Global Advisors.
“A deeper economic crisis could provide a window of opportunity for candidates who are more business friendly.”
Such as technocrats from… Goldman Sachs?
Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse 