What is the Difference between Institutional & Speculation?


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I was talking to a friend who works in one of the banks you probably classify as the club. He knew you right off the bat. He said you have been probably the largest institutional advisor in the world. He said clients question the bank’s research and openly contrast it with yours. My question is simply this. What makes your institutional advice so dominant? Is it different from what you put out on your blog?

Just curious

HD

ANSWER: Interesting question. Institutions CANNOT be flipping their portfolios back and forth. They are not interested in what will the Fed do next week. They cannot react to such short-term swings. Our models are fractal and dynamic. We have the largest database ever assembled and that is what it takes to do accurate long-range forecasting. What you also must understand is how can a guy write a book and describe the feeling it is to give birth. Sure, he can interview women and write down the overview of what they say. But he cannot possibly really know what it feels like.

Look, 99% of all these self-proclaimed analysts have NEVER traded size. The look at the market from a short-term trader perspective and do not even understand how to do strategically position a portfolio. Oh sure, they can advocate the standard 60% equities and 40% bonds. Yet what happens when government bonds default? What happens when 10-year rates are 3% or less and you need to make 8% to cover your liabilities moving forward? They are clueless when it comes to actually the problems in size and how you even place orders.

 

 

The questions from institutions are strikingly different. They need to know when major trends change and how to adjust their portfolio and when. They are not concerned about when is the high Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore, our institutional services are strategically different. You are either long or short. There is no pension fund that can buy even a 10-year government bond paying 3% for they are locking in a 50% loss. If you have not played in the big leagues, don’t bother. How you hedge is strikingly different from speculative trading.

We are able to differentiate between short-term changes in trend and long-term. That is the key. Plus, even if someone comes up with a new model and tries to get a meeting with a major institution if they can get 15 minutes that will be a miracle. Why? Nobody is going to take an unproven model for if it fails, that person loses their job. We have a track record and reputation going back into the 1980s. There is no risk with us because of that and they already know we have more institutional clients than anyone for decades.

Two Free Speech Activists Released After 72 Hour Detention By British Authorities for “Incorrect Thoughts”…


I was waiting to see where this story went, and to hear first-hand from the two people arrested and detained in British prison for daring to want to interview Tommy Robinson, before coming to a conclusion.  In essence two people were stopped, arrested and detained in U.K. prison for having incorrect thoughts as defined by the British government.

The story was such an Orwellian outline; my initial skepticism told me there had to be more to these second and third-hand accounts.  Alas, unfortunately the facts are as disturbing as initially outlined.

Austrian political activist Martin Sellner belongs to a group called Génération Identitaire, a national political group who advocate for national identity.  Mr. Sellner’s girlfriend is an American author and ‘YouTuber’ named Brittany Pettibone.  They were stopped from entering England by British authorities because they were going to interview a British nationalist called Tommy Robinson.

Being stopped from being allowed to interview Tommy Robinson, a person who has not committed any crime and is in all other aspects a free citizen, is bad enough;  however, what is exponentially worse is that U.K. authorities forcibly separated Mr. Sellner and Ms. Pettibone and imprisoned them – while admitting their incarceration was entirely because they were going to speak to someone.

Think about that.

Martin & I were denied entry to the U.K. & held in a detention facility because 1.) I intended to interview “far right leader”, Tommy Robinson. 2.) Because Martin intended to give a speech at Speaker’s Corner which they alleged would “incite tensions between local communities”.

This is political discrimination, plain and simple. @Martin_Sellner and I will release a detailed video statement as soon as possible.

Thank you so much to everyone who helped bring attention to this issue. It’s an absolute disgrace for the U.K. We cannot allow such a precedent to be set in the U.K. or any Western country for that matter.

Lastly, to the U.K. Border Force, I’ll be meeting with “far right leader”, Tommy Robinson, for an interview in Vienna this evening. While you can ban political dissidents from entering/speaking in your country, you can NEVER ban our ideas.  (Ms. Brittany Pettibone via Twitter)

 

Reality of Being a Chief Economic Advisor


QUESTION: I thank God that your are here in my lifetime. The information you freely impart is priceless and I can’t wait to read your daily Posts. I believe that it would be incredibly wise if President Trump were to invite you to replace Gary Cohen as his Chief Economic Advisor. My question is regarding the end of the Private Cycle that you are forecasting will occur in 2032. Will the change result as a demise of the US economy or the rise of the eastern economies? Do you see President Trump as a facilitator to that end or will his policies server to mitigate the process.

Thank you

Sir.

ANSWER: Well thank you very much. But you should understand what goes on behind the curtain and why I prefer this side. I was offered that job back in 1999 to be Bush Jr’s Chief Economic Advisor. I laughed and turned it down. Why? People like Gary Cohn take these jobs because they get to sell all their stock TAX-FREE. Since this would be a conflict of interest to own Goldman Sachs stock, he must sell it to take that job. Since it is something he MUST do, taxes are exempt. Plus all the politicians do not want to get Goldman Sachs angry since they donate to both sides. Therefore, Cohn gets an easy pass by the Senate.

First, we are private, not public, and I have no interest in selling the company to get a tax-free deal. Second, they would NEVER give me a pass in the Senate. I have advised the major car companies outside the USA in Japan and Germany. The Democrats would paint me as a traitor who helped foreign companies beat General Motors. The list can go on and on. So there is no way I would ever be interested in a such a job. Someone like Cohn now gets all the benefits and all he had to do is work one single day and then resign.

Trump is the counter-trend reaction. Reagan was the same reaction to hard economic times. You can see here that world GDP peaked in 1973. I remember the recession into 1976 very clearly. People were openly talking about another Great Depression. You get these counter-trend reactions which slow the decline down. Even Diocletian (284-305AD) instituted monetary reforms, wage, and price controls, and revised the political system creating the Tetrarchy whereby he was the first Emperor to actually retire and pass on the reigns of power. Trump will not reverse the trend. He will at best mitigate the fall during his term.

The Monetary Reform of 1857 Ends Legal Tender Foreign Coins


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I found in my grandmother’s belongings a penny from 1855 and one from 1857 which was much smaller and silver in appearance. Was there also a monetary reform that changed the coinage during the 1850s?

PK

ANSWER: Oh yes. But it is far more interesting than meets the eye. Foreign coins were actually legal tender in the United States until 1857. You could pay taxes with Spanish or English coins. Everything was legal tender under the Coinage Act of 1857.

The government first proposed the penny in the Coinage Act of 1792. Pennies and half-pennies went into production for the first time in 1793 with a composition of 100% copper which weighed 13.48 grams (0.475 ounces). From 1795 to 1857, the government reduced the copper penny in size with a new weight of 10.89 grams (0.384 ounces). It was the Coinage Act of 1857 (Act of Feb. 21, 1857, Chap. 56, 34th Cong., Sess. III, 11 Stat. 163) that the coinage was radically reduced with the composition of the penny being  88% copper and included 12% nickel, which produced a silver-like appearance. The weight was reduced to 4.67 grams (0.164 ounces). By changing the metal content, they justified that this was intrinsically worth more by adding nickel to pure copper.

In 1864, there was another Monetary Reform following the war as inflation set in and drove the value of metals higher. The silver was really removed from the 3 cent coins were now being produced in nickel starting in 1865 and most silver coins were being melted down given the silver was worth more than the face value. It was 1864 that they introduced the two-cent coinage as well reflecting inflation. The design of the penny was the Indian Head until 1909 when they change to the portrait of Abraham Lincoln. From 1864 to 1942, the penny was redesigned penny and it now weighed 3.11 grams (0.109 ounces) and nickel was removed leaving the composition primarily of bronze (95% copper, 5% zinc and tin). In 1943, due to the war, copper rose in value so then struck pennies composed of steel zinc-coated for just one year. The steel penny weighed 2.72 grams (0.095 ounces). From 1944 to 1981, the penny was composed primarily of copper (95%) and zinc (5%), with a weight of 3.11 grams (0.109 ounces). After 1982, copper was eliminated from the penny. The composition was changed because the value of the copper in the coin was greater than one cent. From 1982, the penny became 97.5% zinc composition, which was copper plated. With the commodity boom into 2011, the cost to mint a penny became 2.41 cents. The crash in commodities reduced the cost to 1.83 cents by 2013.

The Coinage Act of 1857 was an act of the United States Congress which ended the status of foreign coins as legal tender, repealing all acts “authorizing the currency of foreign gold or silver coins”. Specific coins would be exchanged at the Treasury and re-coined. Up until 1857, foreign coins circulated as legal tender. The Spanish 8 reals were known as a Pillar Dollar. This was the primary money supply during the Colonial period rather than British coins. In fact, the Spanish dollar was officially declared legal tender (accepted for taxes) by the Act of April 10, 1806.

The United States following the Revolutionary War had no gold reserves. Therefore, in 1792 when the establishment of the US mint came into play, the sole medium of exchange in terms of specie was the foreign coin. Alexander Hamilton proposed that foreign coin should be allowed to circulate freely for a period of three years until the new mint in Philadelphia was running at full capacity. This clause allowing the foreign coin to circulate was renewed several times before it was formally authorized by the Act of April 10, 1806. By 1830, about 25% of all circulating coins were of Spanish origin.

President Andrew Jackson supported foreign coin as legal tender in his famous war with the Bank of the United States in the Gold Bill. Jackson set in motion a major financial crisis as every bank began to issue their own currency. Jackson’s support of foreign coin ended up making it difficult for the US to retain its overvalued worn Spanish silver in the 1840s as they vanished from circulation and private issues appeared known as Hard Times Tokens. It was not until the early 1850s that the US mint had finally been able to match demand for the foreign coin with the production of American issues.

The Act of April 10, 1806, was passed because of the fact that there were no silver dollars minted by the United States at all between 1805 and 1840. In 1792, Congress adopted a bimetallic standard and the 15 to 1 ratio of silver to gold. The precious metal content of a US dollar was fixed at 371¼ grains of silver or 24¾ grains of gold. By 1795, the 15:1 ratio was under pressure because of the revolution in Paris as Gold rose against silver pushing the ratio to 15½ ounces of silver to one ounce of gold. By 1799, the ratio continued to expand reaching 15¾ ounces. This presented a huge arbitrage opportunity, so bullion dealers bought United States gold coins using Spanish silver coins and they shipped them to Europe to be melted and re-sold profiting almost 1oz of silver. The net gold capital outflow was huge and American coin was vanishing rapidly. Finally, in 1804, when Napoléon Bonaparte became emperor,  President Thomas Jefferson was forced to order the suspension of minting gold $10 eagles and silver coins. All we see are copper coins being produced at this point in time. This was the backdrop to the Act of 1806 which made all foreign coins legal tender.

In addition to demonetizing foreign coins, the Coinage Act of 1857 also discontinued the half cent. Furthermore, the penny was reduced in size. The large cent was discontinued and regular coinage of the Flying Eagle cent began. The Act fixed the weight and measure of US one-cent pieces at 4.655 grams, which was composed of 88% copper and 12% nickel. It also mandated that this new copper/nickel alloy be received as payment for the worn gold and silver coins turned in at the mint. The effective aim was to limit the domestic money supply by crushing European competition. This was the first major step towards the government essentially having a monopoly over the money supply.

The Coinage Act of 1857 significantly altered the way American business was conducted. Since the beginning of the Colonies, businesses accepted any form of payment as long as it was made of specie. Following this Act of 1857, American business no longer accepted foreign coins and only US coins were accepted. Throughout this period, there was fierce competition among foreign exchange dealers in the United States. The ability of the US Mint to finally produce enough coinage made much of the foreign silver coinage obsolete.

The Economic Confidence Model & Why there are 6 waves


QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,

Firstly – sorry to hear about the passing of your mother.
Secondly – thank you very much for reading and answering questions.
My question – what is the significance of the six repetitions in the ECM? Six 8.6 years make a cycle and six of these make a larger cycle and then six of these make a super-cycle. Why six? Why not five or seven? Can you explain the significance?
Thank you
g
ANSWER: The Economic Confidence Model is actually a three-dimensional wave structure. The volatility is a different frequency and that is what determines the number of 8.6-year waves for this is building in intensity. What you get at the end of these 51.6-year waves is very profound. After the 1774.95 peak, we end up with a revolution against the monarchy. The next wave peak in 1826.55 Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828, Greek War of Independence, Battle of Monte Santiago between Brazil and Argentina, Mexican Constitution is formed, the Maryland Democratic Party begins creating the confrontation between the Democrats and Republicans (South v North), and even Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on the 4th of July 1826 (1826.50) whereas the peak of the wave was July 19th. The next wave 1878 saw the Long Depression which was called the “Great Depression” until 1929-1932. Then the next wave was 1981.35 which marked the peak in interest rates even to the day. The next one will be 2032 and this will be followed by the shift from the West to the East in economic power.

The Creature from Jekyll Island – Unprofessional Propaganda Book


The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island-2

QUESTION: Martin. Have you read the book Creature of Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin it is about the Feds and how they control? Many years ago I thought it was fiction but after reading it again it is true. My Question what can we do money will be what they want it to be the control?

ST

ANSWER: The book you refer to is propaganda. There are quotes in there that he simply made up about the Rothschilds. Go ahead and try and find the source. I have written about this before. That book is highly dangerous for it completely misrepresents and fails to understand that elastic money began in the 1850s and was created privately by clearing houses. It worked perfectly fine and it was not economically disastrous but BENEFICIAL!

The ability to create money by the Federal Reserve is essential. However, that design was directly beneficial for it would buy ONLY short-term corporate paper in a crisis when banks could not lend. Buying in corporate paper saved jobs. The key was a simple fact it was corporate and NOT the government. Corporates have to pay back – the government does not.

It was not that the Fed was evil, it was that the Fed was usurped by Congress during World War I and directed to buy only the paper of the government. It was that aspect that has altered the role of the central bank and is demonstrated who the ECB in Europe now own 40% of all government debt and they cannot stop without creating a crisis.

The Creature of Jekyll Island advocates what Jackson did, and that will lead to a massive Sovereign Debt Crisis among the States and undermined the entire economy both domestically as well as internationally. That is by no means the answer. The answer lies in the curtailment of politicians. The banks owned the Fed BECAUSE it was a bailout system that they paid into. It was never intended that taxpayer money would be used to bail out banks. Once the banks became the seller of government debt, they then had a grip on government and with the Fed only buying government debt, the entire system is nothing like the intended design.

Interbank Market Collapsing


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Has interbank lending collapse due to a lack of confidence concerning counter-party risk?

Thank you for being a rare source with experience

ER

ANSWER: Yes that is a correct statement. The failure of Lehman and Bear Sterns was the result of interbank lending when they could not make good on the collateral they posted the day before in the REPO market. Then we had the collapse of MF Global, which was also a loss linked to the overnight markets. Now mix in the LIBOR scandal and banks were scrutinized for manipulating LIBOR rates in the interbank market.

The interbank lending market is a market in which banks extend loans to one another for a specified term, typically 24 hrs. Most interbank loans are for maturities of one week or less, the majority being overnight. Such loans are made at the interbank rate (also called the overnight rate if the term of the loan is overnight).

The collapse of this market is a clear warning that liquidity is extremely vulnerable. When crisis strikes, liquidity will simply vanish entirely. This warns that volatility will rise sharply and it appears to be predominantly focused in on the debt market.

The Analysts Are Turning Back to Bearish Again


CNN Money is reporting the headline “A top JPMorgan Chase executive is warning that stocks could fall as much as 40% in the next few years.” CNN reports that Daniel Pinto, JPMorgan’s co-president, said on Bloomberg Television he believed that market gains should continue for the next year or two. However, he added that investors were nervous could result in a “deep correction” of between 20% and 40%, “depending upon the market values at the time the downturn starts.”

Indeed, this was the pause we were looking for from January. We did not see a collapse as in terms of 1987. Instead, this is simply the transition period where the marketplace must come to grips with a Sovereign Debt Crisis and that means rising interest rates will devastate the bond bubble. So exactly how does that equate to a 40% decline in equities?

What is clear is that the initial stages of this consolidation period involved the marketplace coming to grips with the shift from PUBLIC to the PRIVATE rationale. In other words, inflation, rising interest rates, the rapid rise in interest rates, explosion in public debt, and the inability of governments to fund their never-ending deficit spending at the federal, state, and local levels. Then as the economy begins to worsen, this will also historically lead to trade wars.

This is good news. We need the majority of analysts to turn bearish in order to restore the upward bias we have enjoyed for the past 8 years. We can see that our Energy Models are not in a position for a major high. They have been rising, not declining as new highs were made. This strongly suggests we will still see higher highs in the years ahead. The more analysts we get back to bearish, the strong the breakout to the upside later on.

Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution


As part of CCA III: The Sixties, Mary Eberstadt, author of An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic And The Spirit of America, gives a lecture at Hillsdale College on the Sexual Revolution.

Putin’s Address to the Nation & the World


 

Putin’s address on March 1st to the Federal Assembly seems to have sparked a lot of crazy emails with people talking nonsense about things they do not even come close to understanding. Yes, the headline grabber was Putin’s statement about a new invincible cruise missile. I will address that in a moment. Overlooked, however, was Putin addressing the real issues of economic concerns that seem to have gone over everyone’s head. The problem with the Oligarchs where he is implying that things need to change for the good of Russia. China moved to Capitalism directly from Communism and we see the difference with China poised to surpass the US economy by 2032 and is already the second largest economy in the world. Russia, on the other hand, simply moved from state-controlled economic system to one where political friends became Oligarchs and prevented a free market economy. Russia economically ranks 12th in the world behind the USA, China, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Italy, Canada, and South Korea. This is what Putin was addressing, the need to truly open up the economy to competition. If you try to compete against an Oligarch by opening a restaurant in Moscow, you will be lucky to survive beyond 24 hours. Russia is economically a third world country with a lot of weapons. Putin realizes that for all its military power, it collapsed BECAUSE it did not have the economy to support its military ambitions.

Putin also addressed trying to keep people from leaving Russia. Despite the Global Warming movement that is really trying to reduce the population, in fact, the population is declining among the industrialized nations and Russia is no exception. The population of Russia peaked at 148,689,000 back in 1991, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ever since the collapse of Communism, people realize that the State will not simply take care of them. As a direct result, the birth rates have been steadily dropping and there have been abnormally high death rates in Russia as well among the elderly. Russia’s population has been declining at an annual rate of 0.5%, or about 750,000 to 800,000 people per year since 1991. Add to this figure, the migration of Russian women looking for Western men, and you have a crisis brewing in the decline of population in Russia that threatens its long-term viability.

Nevertheless, the area of Putin’s speech that has sparked the wildest claims were those comments which mentioned the invincible strategic nuclear systems in various stages of development. The boast of a missile that can penetrate the US defense system has been known behind the curtain as the RS-28 “Sarmat” system which is a new land-based heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This is what is being fitted with advanced technology to assure penetration of any missile defense.

Putin definitely made global headlines with these comments. However, I really did not think it warranted comment since Russia’s ability to defeat U.S. missile defenses is nothing new. I suppose I have known that fact but it seems many did not. Let me explain something that may not be common knowledge. U.S. policy has been not to deploy a defensive system that could neutralize a Russian retaliatory response to a U.S. nuclear attack. The reason this is the basic policy is the concern that such a system which was called Star Wars, would destabilize the world and result in a new arms race where Russia would be driven to re-establish a retaliatory capability. Putin’s response was directed at Trump and his administration’s idea of reversing that policy creating a new Ballistic Missile Defense Review. This was part of the February 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review which states that any improvements in U.S. defensive capabilities will be deployed in such a way as to “preclude an arms race” with China or Russia. Therefore, Putin was addressing this very issue and to make it clear that there MUST remain a balance between powers for all the nukes keep everyone in check.

Putin also addressed a maneuverable hypersonic glide the “Avangard” which is a new missile system with a vehicle of this type. Putin also mentioned a long-range nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicle that can be fitted with a nuclear warhead, known commonly as “Status-6.” Both of these systems are designed to evade any U.S. defensive measures — Avangard by presenting an unpredictable flight trajectory, while Status-6 is an entirely new sea-based way to deliver a nuclear weapon. Both are designed to maintain the power balance.

The invincible new cruise missile was really a statement to Trump not to start a new arms race. You simply have to understand what is going on behind the curtain right now.