Understanding Cycles & Dynamic Inter-connectivity


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; I really do not think the world respects your work. I read on your blog there was going to be a bad flu from Australia that would hit Britain. Then a few days later, the headline here is all about what you forecast. You really have to go public and let people support your work in a meaningful way. The world really does need to listen.

All the best from your former home.

EB

REPLY: I understand. I get a lot of emails on this subject. The world is not ready to understand cycles. All the methods of analysis are generally wrong. All the analysts who try to compete with me do so on an OPINION basis, not methodology. They offer their OPINION and pound their chest. This is not about OPINION. This is about global correlation. We all have opinions and they are never 100% perfect. There have been times my personal “opinion” has been proven wrong by Socrates. This is why I always try to make sure “opinion” is separates from a forecast.

How many times have we heard some food is bad for you and then they reverse it a decade later? The standard method of analysis is always trying to reduce everything to a single cause of action. That methodology is lethal to knowledge and the future. It blocks our advancement in every field of science like Global Warming. Let’s see, it has gotten warmer in the past 25 years so that must be because of cars. They start with that assumption and never test the data before 1850 because there were no cars then. Why bother? We know the cause is cars, they say. So look for data to prove the assumption.

This to me is absurd. You can also say everyone who has ever eaten a carrot had eventually died and that means carrots must be long-term deadly. It was assumed that illness was in the blood. So the logical conclusion was to bleed people. If they died, it was never because they took too much blood, but they did not bleed them soon enough.

I just am tired of beating my head against a brick wall. Society has to break and only then will we look to new dynamic interconnectivity that is the path to understanding. There are those in New York City who just cannot stand what I do. They refuse to consider there is a methodology at issue here and prefer to blame me the messenger claiming I have too much “influence” and that is why they are wrong. They would try to kill me if they could since they tried that one before but I survived. Why admit you may be wrong when you can blame someone else for your failures? That, unfortunately, infects a large part of humanity.

Going public is the only way to preserve this research and push it forward for posterity. I have not changed my mind. We were granted our business license in China. It took three years of investigation and that is by no means an easy accomplishment. So we now have the seal of approval from China and that will be the biggest market the other side of 2032. Now we are getting closer to going public

Why Models Fail


 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Did AIG use the Black-Scholes Model and that is what created the crisis again in 2007?

WJ

ANSWER: No. It’s my understanding that AIG developed different models, they called a “Value-at-Risk Model,” (VaR) which used a binomial-expansion-technique to start valuing their positions. I believe the original model was developed at Moody’s. However, like the Black-Scholes Model, it too lacked depth. In model development, it is extremely complex.

Virtually every model created tends to be predominately flat with a minimum of dynamic variables lacking understanding of TIME. Then the testing period lacks the database reflecting all conditions. In the case of Black-Scholes, they back-tested only with data to 1971. If I created a model with only data from 2009 forward, then it would be biased to presume a bull market is normal in the stock market.

The Value at risk (VaR) model is a measure of the risk of investments. It estimates how much a set of investments might lose, given normal market conditions, in a set time period such as a day. VaR is typically used by firms and regulators in the financial industry to gauge the number of assets needed to cover possible losses. It obviously failed in 2007-2009 because once again it was not a “normal market condition” for it fails utterly to understand CONTAGION when sound assets are sold to raise cash for other assets that collapse. The assumption of the model is its own nemesis.

For example, if a portfolio of stocks has a one-day 5% VaR of $10 million, this actually means that there is a 5% probability that the portfolio will fall in value by more than $1o million over a one-day period if there is no trading. Therefore, a loss of $1o million or more on this portfolio would be expected on 1 day out of 20 days given a 5% probability. A loss which exceeds the VaR threshold is termed a “VaR breach“.

So you can see, such models are incapable of determining TIME and as a result, they will always fail during a CONTAGION that they cannot see coming.

This is why the bulk of portfolio models fails during a financial crisis. This is also why some of the top Institutional portfolios come to our firm because they have realized that only TIME determines the success of any model and making broad assumptions of probability have ALWAYS failed. If you cannot model TIME and CONTAGION, you will be wiped out during a crisis and VaR will fail just as Black-Sholes.

 

What Did the Pivots Confirm or Deny for 2017?


QUESTION: Marty; At your training seminar you did a couple of year’s ago, you said your pivot numbers will confirm or deny a high. What was the status on the Pivots in the Dow for the close?

PS Another training session would be nice.

GD

ANSWER: The 2006 closing was 12463.15 and the Pivots were 10949.43, 10727.38, and 14234.29. We closed above two and below one leaving the market still bullish looking to higher prices. Then 2007 closed at 13264.82 and now it was below two 13836.74, 10727.38, and 14234.29. The high for that year came in at 14198.10. So we closed under two and above the lowest which indicated it was then turning bearish into 2008.

The 2017 Pivots were 21982.03, 1528.79, and 22282.07 with the closing coming in at 24719.22. Here we closed above all three Pivots indicating it is still long-term bullish. Looking at 2018, the Pivots move to 20202.77, 27434.90 and 28054.53.

We warned back in October 2014: “[W]e are looking at a rally into 2017-2018 with the Dow reaching the 25,000-28,000 level. ”

We can see that we have reached the beginning of our Pivot projections made 10 years ago for this time period. This suggests CAUTION and with our volatility models turning up and a Panic Cycle for 2018, this is not going to be a walk in the park. This will take a lot of skill to trade this one. No emotions and no preconceived expectations. We have to play this by the numbers and cycles – no choice. This is not the time for boasting opinions.

If I have time to do a training session again I will let everyone know. The seat price of $5,000 last time because it is a lot of work and we have to keep the audience in a more intimate session.

Russia Responds to the Trump Tax Reform


Russian President Vladimir Putin is also responding to the Trump Tax Reform. Putin has also taken a step to promote the repatriation of capital from abroad. He is now proposing that only a 13% tax on funds retrieved should be abolished. Additionally, he is proposing that there should once again be an amnesty for Russian companies that bring their cash home.

Russia introduced such immunity for past tax avoidance and foreign exchange offenses back in 2014 when the country faced massive capital outflows. That amnesty had been used very little proving to be ineffective. It expired in mid-2016.

China Eliminates Taxation For Foreign Companies Investing in China


China has responded to global competition that is exploding in the wake of the Trump Tax Reform. While domestic news in the USA continues to bash the tax reform on class warfare, the rest of the world is trying to come to terms with what Trump has set in motion. China’s response is to allow foreign companies complete tax-free business on any profits they reinvest in China upping the stakes. Their position was stated by the Ministry of Finance and it is designed to “foster the growth of foreign investment, improve the quality of foreign investment, and encourage foreign investors to continuously expand their investment in China.” The tax exemption applies retroactively from January 1st, 2017 beating Trump at his own game once more. Foreign companies who have paid taxes in China for 2017 will be refunded.

Domestically, companies in China are already complaining about rising costs that are caused by raising taxes. They have warned that this could lead to production relocations. The standard corporate tax rate is 25% in China. In order to benefit from the newly announced tax rebates, foreign companies have to meet several requirements. These include direct investment in industries promoted by the government in Beijing. Also, the money must flow directly to the companies.

The tax game is now afoot. The big loser will be Europe because they are far more entangled with the socialist agenda than anyone else with New Zealand and Australia fighting for second place in the uncompetitive tax burden race to the top

MIFiD II Delays…


Talk amongst many traders is that they are so unsure how the new rules and regulations surrounding the implementation of MIFiD II (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive) are to be imposed, that some even said they were keen to extend their holidays until this mess is sorted out. In other words, until they hear that regulators will grant firms a six-month delay for part of the changes about to be implemented for both the company and country, many just do not even know how to conduct business anymore.

The most critical problem surrounding this nightmare is the fact that every trade (with a European Counterpart) will require a LEI (Legal Entity Identifier). This is not such a critical issue for Wall Street Banks since they have already won a 30-month grace period after the SEC requested time to negotiate terms with the EU. Goldman Sachs has installed another of its board members as the top negotiator inside the SEC – Alan Cohen. Goldman Sachs has now three strategic people in the Trump Administration to steer the legislation in their favor both in the USA with restoring Glass Steagall to reduce their competition (Gary Cohen & Steven Mnuchin) and they have now added Alan Cohen, who was their Head of Global Compliance

Not all EU countries have come to terms with LEI’s yet so its no surprise a six-month grace period has been awarded just on its eve! The European Securities and Markets Authority on Wednesday proposed the grace period for a requirement that companies wanting to trade with any party based in the European Union will need a code, known as a legal entity identifier, or LEI. The identifying code is important as it lets firms continue to trade from MiFID’s Jan. 3 start date. Industry groups and regulators have been directing firms to register for months, saying: “No LEI, no trade.”

During the six-month grace period of relief, any investment firms may trade with clients under the condition that before providing services, the firm must obtain the necessary documentation to at least apply for an LEI code on its behalf.

The EU Bad Loan Crisis to Get Much Worse – The Solution = Financial Pandemic


The bad loan (“non-performing loan” (NPL)) crisis in Europe is well known and many have been calling for this issue to be addressed. In Italy, the bad loan crisis has reached 21% of GDP. While NPLs dropped to 4.8% of all loans in the EU as a whole during the first quarter of 2017, they remained well above 40% in Greece and Cyprus, at 18.5% in Portugal, and 14.8% in Italy according to the European Banking Authority.

Now comes the bureaucrats with zero experience to save the day – or is that to create a financial pandemic in the EU? The EU Commission (EUC)  along with the European Central Bank (ECB), want to ensure that banks promptly sell real estate, stocks, bonds and other assets that serve to collateralize loans according to their Mid-term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan.  Member States are required to adopt laws that facilitate the central directive. At this time, any bank cannot just sell a property that secures a loan. The problem is, all loans, whether secured or not, are valued the same.

Once again, all we have is the ECU and ECB desperately trying to prevent a banking crisis as loans in default rise. However, this project is totally incomprehensible for now a well-secured loan which does not pose any particular credit risk in traditional banking can find its collateral sold. Any loan cannot liss a payment in difficult periods even when fully collateralized. This puts the European economy in a serious crisis for if banks begin to sell off collateral, then the entire market will move into crash mode forcing asset values to decline undermining the collateral of other loans. This regulatory logic is just totally insane and is concerned only with EU fiscal policy that does not want to support the banking industry and thus the economy.

All loans have been rated the same in Europe for a long time, no matter if the collateral fully secures the loan or is not even present. If a borrower encounters any problem, the loans are to be downgraded in terms of creditworthiness and must be underpinned by more capital that must be added to the bank reserves. This applies even if the borrowers are economically sound and have sufficient assets but encounter cash flow problems because of the overall economic condition, they can find their collateral being sold off in a manic fashion. The new rules mean that a loan quickly becomes an NPL and banks are to liquidate the collateral ASAP.

If an NPL is equipped with collateral, the bank is now directed foreclose and sell the real estate, securities, and any other collateral according to the EUC and ECB. This means people will be thrown out of their homes if they become unemployed and cannot make a mortgage payment. The loss of a source of income will cause the loan to be classified as an NPL and sold even if the home has just 10% of its value outstanding. The bank must act as if the family were bankrupt and the loan uncollectible.

If a small business experiences a decline in sales because of the economic deflation in Europe, the business is classified as a higher risk. The existing securities used to collateralize the business loans are sold and the current account credit is repaid as “NPL”. Many small businesses pledged the owner’s home to back the business. Under these new rules, the small business will be liquidated and the owner will lose their homes as well. The implication of these rules means that a small business will not be able to expand and hire people when the risk is far too great. Economically, the new rules will undermine the economy even more and send Europe into a deeper recession while causing collateral values to decline.

Under these rules, a massive sale of land and real estate would most likely result. Asset values will decline as was the case during the Great Depression as banks would generate lower revenues from the realization of collateral only further causing the banking crisis to spiral downward into a complete debt crisis in Europe.

 

The crisis gets even worse where there are family members who co-signed for a mortgage. The friend or family member who co-signed the loan is now required to make all the payments and if they do not, then their assets will be seized and sold as well. What these bureaucrats fail to comprehend is that assets will collapse rapidly because other banks will be unwilling to finance loans for someone else to buy the property being sold off at auction. During the Great Depression, farmland fell to even less than 10% of its value because the only buyers were those who had cash.

The banks are supposed to sell NPL, but under a massive force liquidation, asset values will collapse. They assume that such a sale would be one property at a time that would not impact the overall market. Under these rules, we will see the deleveraging of private debt in Europe on a grand scale.

The EU’s policy of classifying all loans for the slightest problem as a risk explains why bank overseers are talking about €800 billion to €1 trillion euro in NPLs exist among the European banks. There is no distinguishment between fully-collateralized and non-collectible loans. Nor do bureaucrats comprehend the true meaning of a “non-performing loan” that is temporary and one that could never be repaid. Bureaucrats are not capable of understanding the economy nor do they comprehend that the entire economy is leveraged. Most people buy their home on credit, not cash.

Bureaucrats also fail to understand that NPLs since the financial crisis of 2008/2009 are not exactly the crisis they assume. In truth, irrecoverable loans would have to be written off long ago since the bank balance sheets under current auditor rules. Therefore, the current NPLs are generally good loans that can be serviced according to the usual banking practice that are experiencing cash flow problems. The EUC is demanding banks sell all NPLs, secured or unsecured.

Under these rules, there is little interest in the secondary market for the purchase of NPLs from banks, which are typically sold off at a discount. With no viable secondary market, Member States are to set up so-called “Asset Management Companies” (AMCs) to buy and sell NPLs. State subsidies are recommended – “of course only insofar as they do not contradict the EU prohibitions on state subsidies”. How to resolve this contradiction, the commission does not say. It also calls for the creation of service companies to service the loans. This is taking a problem and turning it into a crisis with more bureaucrats making decisions.

Back in 2008, banks sold off loans which were called “asset-backed securities” (ABS). This only accelerated the crisis because the loans were managed by computers that automatically defaulted on the entire loan with the slightest delay. The result was clear. Many families lost their homes without necessity and small businesses had to close. Then the banks were sued in legal proceedings for selling damaged loans. Here too, we have a strict rule that someone behind on a mortgage will be immediately declared an NPL.

The NPL agencies and service agencies for loan management envisioned by the EUC and ECB will effectively take over the portfolios of the banks in a forced ABS. The banks will, therefore, outsource the risks to government-run agencies. This will be the official institutionalized ABS structure. The scheme is that these bureaucratic institutions will somehow be better at managing loans and will magically require no capital since they will sell the assets and then pay the bank. In this way, the allocation of new loans should be made possible in their mind. As always, the government does not understand the marketplace or the economy and assume that asset prices will not decline in the face of incompetent government sale of assets.

This scheme has failed to address the problem that when selling loans, the selling bank will still retain part of the risk of a loss in capital based upon the sale price achieved by the government. This is replacing banks with experience with bureaucrats yet the banks will suffer the losses taken by the bureaucrats.

The NPLs are far greater in the southern region of the EU. This measure will only intensify the call for separatism. The new rules are more-likely-than-not going to set off a new phase of the debt crisis and nurture it into a Financial Pandemic.

Venezuela Oil Industry Collapsing & May Take the Gov’t With It


Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserve in the world. However, they are out of gasoline. The government has attributed this to poor management which has led to the stoppage of 80% of the country’s refineries. So much for socialism. The assumption that government is competent of managing anything is proven by this very example.

My old friend, Milton Friedman, said it best:

“If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

A general with no energy experience was put now in charge of the state oil company. The problem has been political arrests has witnessed a mass migration of those with talent leaving the country with incompetent management. This has resulted in the oil industry simply collapsing as production is plummeting. A lack of investment compounded from the private sector and a collapse in cash flow coupled with chronic shortages of spare parts have crippled operations and we are looking at the first stage of how a government itself collapses under socialism.

BRICS the Rise & Fall


The first thing to go when a country is moving into economic crisis is the arts. This is intermixed with various social programs. As the economic crisis broadens, demand for taxing the rich rise. However, all this accomplishes is to cause capital to hide and hoard even more refusing to invest or spend and this then adds to the economic decline.

The BRICS were touted as the new rage in the world economy. The BRICS were even holding their own summits and they were supposed to surpass the G7, were all the forecasts. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa became known as the “BRIC” nations back in 2001 which was a term coined by of course Goldman Sachs.

This curiosity about how the BRICS would displace the G7 as the world leading economic power was up there with the DOT.COM bubble and more recently the BitCoin Bubble. This five-country association of emerging economies has demonstrated that such hype of counting on such fades to alter the future have always ended in disappointment.

Russia ran into an economic headwind and sanctions, China has slowed remarkably and has now shifted its focus to try to build its internal economy as we see in Suadi Arabia and the UAE in the Middle East. India committed suicide trying to force its economy out of a cash-based economy with his leftist Prime Minister who has done far more harm to India than good.

South Africa has seen political change sweeping the nation because of the failure of this BRIC dream. The new ANC government of South Africa wants to nationalize the central bank and expropriate the white minority. They want to now take control of the central bank 100% and you know what that means – total economic disaster. The bank will now become the political tool of government divorcing any economic management whatsoever.

Then there is Brazil, burdened with corruption and everything within the social structure is collapsing. The symbol of this economic failure is the effective closure of its Rio de Janeiro’s splendid Municipal Theatre which has gone dark as months of unpaid wages forced ballerinas and opera singers into poverty.

SNP INCREASE INCOME TAXES IN SCOTLAND


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong,
In stark contrast to the USA which is heading for LOWER taxes which you say will invigorate the economy,the SNP Government in Scotland has announced HIGHER income taxes “to protect public services from the cuts being imposed by the Tories.”
Clearly the SNP Government is unconcerned that its tax policies make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.
Interestingly the SNP approach to taxation confirms three of your views:
1.Politicians keep lowering the definition of “the rich.”Earlier this year Derek Mackay,SNP Finance Secretary,an apparatchik with no financial background,described people in Scotland earning £43,000 a year as “rich.”However in his December Budget ,higher taxes start to take effect on people earning over £33,000 a year, according to the SNP, while The Telegraph claims that people in Scotland earning as little as £26,000 a year will pay more income tax than in the rest of the UK.
2.Faced with a choice of cutting public spending or increasing taxes politicians will invariably choose the latter.The annual cost to the Scottish Government of subsidizing free prescriptions is £1 billion.Of course means testing could substantially reduce the cost but this expenditure is regarded as sacrosanct because it is an SNP flagship policy.
3.The economic illiteracy of politicians.The SNP Government has pushed through these tax increases despite the fragile state of the Scottish economy where retail spending growth over the past eight years has averaged only 0.5% against a UK average of 2.2%.Scottish economic growth has also lagged the UK in recent years.It is transparently obvious to anyone with common sense that these tax increases will have serious consequences for the Scottish economy.
REPLY: Yes, the SNP does not get it. They are headed for a major political disaster. They fail to get what they are doing is not limited to transferring the wealth from the rich to the poor, but from the people to government employees. They will pay the price at the next election.