Tag Archives: LIBOR rates

Apr 9 2018

Great Alignment – Metals – Shares – Tangible Assets


Armstrong Economics Blog/Basic Concepts

Re-Posted Apr 9, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Mr. Armstrong, I notice that the gold market and the Dow Jones they both had a high in January and since then they have been treading water, are this markets getting in sync or is just a coincidence. Also when it come to the markets you have explain that we will always see the “if then” situation, my question is a what point do we know that this is the right time to pull trigger on buying or selling?

Thank you

NMP

ANSWER: We are not there just yet. However, we are starting the Great Alignment and this is what needs to take place as we move into the future. The 99% of analysis out there on gold is just so wrong it is laughable. They typically call the dollar to collapse and gold will soar. They look at historical charts without understanding the economics behind them. Yes, you see gold rally between 1930 and 1932 so they forecast gold will rally with the collapse of the dollar and the stock market. However, 1931 was the Sovereign Debt Crisis where most of the world permanently defaulted on their National Debts. The USA did not. So because we were on a gold standard, if the price of gold rose, so did the dollar. OMG! That must be heresy!

When you are on a gold standard, then tangible assets drop in terms of currency so yes gold rises. But when you are NOT on a gold standard, then gold is just a tangible asset that declines against the currency along with everything else. Most of these people are clueless about understanding the monetary system

During the rally for gold into 1980 when the dollar was declining in the floating exchange rate system, the stock market did not crash – it consolidated. These people spin out total sophistry that sounds great, cause so many people to lose their savings, and they never repent or try to understand why they have been wrong every since 1980

The Great Alignment will be when all tangible assets rise against a declining purchasing power of the currencies which today are NOT linked to gold.

We are getting closer. Do not rush in where only fools are found.

Apr 8 2018

Central Banks are not All the Same


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks

Re-Posted Apr 8, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Marty,

I am curious if you have a take on the BOJ. They own almost all of the JJB market and have stated explicitly they will buy it all. Now they own 77% of the Japanese ETF market.

Is it folly to suggest that the US gov’t or FED is not doing the exact thing?

Case in point, I know no one in managed money that is stupid. So, this morning why were stocks panic bid in the face of horrid payrolls and an all out bloodbath with China, especially considering that valuations are extreme. That was not delta hedging.

Have equity markets become weaponized for economic policy?

ANSWER: The Fed is nothing like the Bank of Japan (BoJ) or even the ECB. In the case of Japan, their debt has always been primarily held domestically. You could not issue even a private note in Japanese yen without prior approval of the Ministry of Finance. Japan has maintained a controlled economy. The ECB has followed that direction. It is illegal to short Eurozone bonds. In both cases, they believe if they control the financial markets they can prevent a crash and this support the political agenda.

The Fed is NOT reinvesting its bond purchases. When they mature, the balance sheet will be reduced. Always people bash the Fed and attribute what the BoJ and ECB do assuming the same will take place at the Fed. This is just not true.

We just obtained the lowest quarterly closing on German bonds since the major high of June 2016.

Apr 8 2018

Understanding the Markets


Armstrong Economics Blog/Dow Jones

Re-Posted Apr 8, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; On your January 29 blog, you wrote “In the US Share Market, this is now a turning point we have reached. I have warned for months that exceeding the November high would lead to a January high. Now, the failure of February to make new highs warns of a March low. The support for a correction now lies at the 25637 level on a weekly closing basis (this is not a reversal). We will elaborate today on the Private Blog.” You warned that March could produce a high and keep the cycle inversion process in play. That proved correct since the Nasdaq made new highs and the Dow a reaction high. So that led to the drop into the first week of April. For the actual buy and sell signals, we should only do so on reversals and turning points. The January high you did with the turning point I assume and then the reversals kicked in. The buying opportunity I also assume we must wait for the turning point as was the case for the high. Correct?

PF

ANSWER: Correct. I have made it perfectly clear that NORMALLY one turning point is followed by the OPPOSITE event on the next. So a January high would traditionally produce a March low. However, I pointed out that we have been in a Cycle Inversion. September 2017, November 2017, and January 2018 followed by March 2018 were all the monthly sequential turning points. Normally, each would produce the opposite. That was not the case and each produced a high. This is the Cycle Inversion and it is also warning that we are still consolidating. March produced a high in the Nasdaq and only a reaction high in the Dow. This further warned that there was a shift from an international focus to domestic (Dow v Nasdaq). March also produced only a reactionary high the week of 03/12.

Far too many people expect a guru and want to act based solely upon a comment. Buy this or sell that and that person should always be correct. That is the dream of a fool for nobody can do that. They will ALWAYS quickly lose their money and then blame their pretend guru. That is a sure-fire way to go broke and if they are trying to trade short-term on such comments, they must be insane.

I have stated at the outset of this year that 2018 was a Panic Cycle. That means you test both directions! I further warned that we would see consolidation dominate the first part of 2018 so there was no reason to rush back in until we reach (1) turning point and (2) reversals. The closing of the first quarter was neutral in many markets once again showing that we are still in this consolidation mode. Buy or sell signals are on REVERSALS – never comments.

If you are trying to be a short-term trader and you think that will lower your risk, you are dead wrong. The best performance is to go with the trend and act ONLY on Weekly to Monthly signals – not commentary. January was a critical turning point. All our models were converging at that time so it was ripe for the correction which is why I stated that and was already getting criticism by January 31st, 2018.

The high was Friday January 26th. Every model we had was starting to scream DOWN! The Cycle Inversion was confirmed on the first day of December. I warned if we exceeded the November high, we would rally into January. The high came exactly 43 days (8.6 /2) from the breakout. That frequency does work in the share market except at extreme turning points. That lined up perfectly. The oscillators, always a lagging indicator, turned down on the 30th. Our Skew Model bottomed one day from the high on the 29th. Our Energy model peaked on the day, The subsequent sharp rally into March confirmed this was a reaction high.

Here is the Array on the Dow. There were three weeks targeted 02/12, 02/26, and 03/12 followed by 04/02. The week of 02/12 was a Directional Change and that sent the market back up leaving the February low intact. The next target was 02/26 which produced the reaction high in the Dow. The next target 03/12 produced the high in the Nasdaq.  Then the next target 04/02 produced the retest of the Feb low. Once again, we can see how the markets were interacting and producing the shift from international to domestic.

Clearly, commentary is just an attempt to expalin what is unfolding. It is NEVER for trading purposes. We trade based upon the Reversals and Toming exclusively.

Apr 7 2018

Companies Stop Buy-Backs Causing January Crash?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Stock Indicies

Re-Posted Apr 7, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; The analysis being punted around is that the crash from January was caused because companies stopped buying back their own shares. The analysis claims that $4 trillion in buy-backs have taken place since 2009 and they stopped because of regs and that was the cause of the crash. It seems to me that this is bogus for the Nasdaq rallied into March and it was the Dow that led the whole way. This analysis appears to be fake news for it is as you say, trying to reduce everything to a single cause. Would you agree?

HC

ANSWER: Absolutely. Yes, Bloomberg wrote about that and put out the research of Goldman Sachs. During the Great Depression, companies tried to support the market and were buying back their shares aggressively during the crash. It not only failed to support the market, it undermined the companies themselves and many failed because they could not raise money nor borrow money as the Great Depression continued. This fundamental sounds logical, but it is just nonsense. Not only did companies rush to buy their own shares back as the 1929 Crash unfolded, they even went as far as to offer loans on their own shares to workers. I wrote about that in the Greatest Bull Market:

/id. page 231

None of all this support had any impact in stopping the Crash. As I have stated many times, everything is connected. If the entire market is crashing, a company trying to buy back its own shares to support its share price has NEVER worked even once in reversing the trend. Bloomberg’s report is indeed bogus. It is simply trying to report ah – this was the cause! It never works that way

Apr 6 2018

Comprehending The Capabilities of AI


Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers

Re-Posted Apr 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong – Neural nets and deep-learning algos are not all that new. However, with the advent of quantum computing power and huge cloud data stores recording every flinch people make, the business world is abuzz that this is the portent for AI to now transform business, business management, and our lives. Of course, trading systems are now being ‘trained’ on datasets. However, regardless the algo, it’s learning capacity is still limited by the extent of the data that it is presented. Since you have spent so much exhaustive work amassing such a long-term financial (and governmental, etc.) database, using even such things as coinage records for your forensics, I have to wonder if these other systems will still have a long run to go before their forecasting power can match that of your models. Do you expect this to provide Socrates an advantage over the new wave of AI market/trading forecasters that will last for some time yet?

SC

ANSWER: The long-term database is essential. That cost more than $100 million to assemble and quite frankly, nobody seems to be willing to spend that much. This is why all prior models have collapsed creating economic catastrophes such as Long-Term Capital Management debacle. They collapsed again in 2007. Nevertheless, then you have the problem of Neutral Nets are just incapable of handling the vast array of variables. The attempts to create trading models are all flat-model based. Our system has made so many accurate forecasts for so long on so many markets around the globe that I do not even comment on. It is far too much for me to even write about. That is the whole purpose of Socrates.

I had to design a completely different programming technique to work out the complexity. Just image calculating every market in the world in 35 different currencies. The number of variables is beyond comprehension. If we are talking about a limited number of variables for normal business operations, Neural Nets are fine. When it comes to market forecasting, they can develop a Deep Learning system on a single market, but without correlating this with all other markets, you will NEVER see the contagion coming. When everything crashed in 1998 because of the collapse in the Russian debt markets, the illiquidity caused funds to sell other assets to raise cash to cover losses elsewhere. The Russian bond collapse caused a massive sell-off in Japanese yen/dollar rate that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fundamentals in Japan. Contagions always emerge externally so you can create a model and it will work for a while and then you lose everything.

Apr 5 2018

The Federal Reserve Un-Discussed Structure


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks

Re-Posted Apr 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Your 4-2-18 FEDERAL RESERVE VS CONGRESS Blog should be framed & sent to every talk show host and politician in the country. It really puts everything in perspective.
SC

REPLY: What I find most astonishing is that to write that article, all you have to do is a little investigation. Nobody bothers to question anything. That is the most shocking thing I have encountered. So often I get responses like how come I am the only one saying this? Some people think this is just sophistry or made up. I cannot explain why investigative journalists never dare to actually investigate. All I can assume is that some have tried, but their editors will not allow such articles to be published. It is truly mind-numbing.

Contemporary journalism back in 1913 called it a monetary change from a national currency system to a national credit system. There were cartoons and well as criticism of the new central bank. The entire theory of elastic money was talked about. Today, the vast majority remain ignorant of the entire debate of that era.

It is no wonder why people just read the Creature from Jekyll Island and assumed evil lurks behind the scenes. They focus on the Fed is “owned” by the banks and merge that with elastic money and have no idea that the ownership was because the taxpayer was not going to fund a bank bailout so the banks had to put up their own money to create the Fed and pay into it to support the system. The elastic money supply was in use since the 1850s and the Fed would buy ONLY corporate paper when banks were not lending to preserve the economy and prevent corporations from laying off workers. The corporate paper is secured and is retired.  The structure was changed with World War I when Congress instructed the Fed to then buy ONLY government paper. Temporary solutions always become permanent and thus the Fed today is nothing close to the original design.

Apr 5 2018

Individual v Institutional Portfolio


Armstrong Economics Blog/Asset Allocate

Re-Posted Apr 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Martin, in today’s answer re: Asset Allocation you had mentioned of helping a couple of large funds prepare for what is to come.Was wondering if we regular folks will also be privy to this info at some point and also will we get a heads up when things are getting closer to the Big Event.In an earlier blog you had mentioned something about 2022, will that be a critical time for our savings/economy?

Thank you always for your work.

W

ANSWER: The difficulty in turning around major portfolios is substantially different from a private individual. Often these major portfolios are dominated by real estate and government bond positions in the hundreds of billions of dollars. How to strategically shift such portfolios is highly complicated and it cannot be done on a single phone call. The complexity is significant and the general advice on here is not opposite of recommendations to institutions. How to execute such shifts and when is critical timing.

I have stated many times that you can turn a speedboat on a dime. That is not the case with an aircraft carrier. This is the same difference between a private portfolio and a major institution. They just cannot pick up the phone and yell sell everything at the market! This is substantially a different position altogether.

The advice we provide for a major portfolio shift has to be tailored to the asset allocation mix. We must run timing models on each and every component for selling one aspect can have an adverse impact on other assets classes. It is by no means a simple project.

Apr 5 2018

New York Real Estate


Armstrong Economics Blog/Real Estate

Re-Posted Apr 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I listened to you perhaps a bit too late. Put my condo on the market here in New York City and nothing for six months. The realtor said they have never seen buyers disappear so fast. Is there still hope for those of us trapped in the Big Apple?

GB

ANSWER: Real estate in New York has collapsed 25% basis the number of sales by the end of the first quarter. Sorry, but you may have to just lower your price until you find a sucker. Keep in mind that as interest rates rise, banks will tend to run away from mortgages very fast. The last crisis was real estate. They will be more reluctant with real estate than any other sector going forward. If funding for mortgages dries up, prices crash.

 

Apr 4 2018

Asset Allocation


Armstrong Economics Blog/Asset Allocate

Re-Posted Apr 4, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION:  Hi Martin,
First of all I enjoyed your 2018 Share Market Report and I am looking forward to your video updates. I am one of those retired investors with a typical 50% equities and 50% bonds portfolio. In your recent blog you stated, “The biggest losers have been the asset allocation followers. They assume they cannot forecast the future so they spread their assets hoping that the traditional 60% equities will make up for the losses on the 40% bonds.” Since both equities and bonds prices have rallied since 2009. Is this the time to change our portfolio mix to raise our equities percentages over bonds (my bonds are one year US treasuries). If so what should our portfolio mix be going forward?
Thank you for your guidance!
KC

ANSWER: I really cannot wait to launch Socrates. Answering these questions depends entirely upon (1) your currency base, and (2) the country in reference. There will be a great divide between US government debt and that of Europe. The dividing line appears to arrive in 2019. For now, US debt will be the best performing and the short-term debt will have the least risk of a Forced Loan Conversion, which has taken place in Europe before post-World War II. A “Forced Loan Conversion” is a phrase I coined to identify what happens when a government cannot repay its debt. Italy simply decreed that short-term paper such as 90-day bills were converted to 10-year paper. There is no risk of short-term US debt going through a Forced Loan Conversion.

The Italian government engaged in a Forced Loan Conversion which was a mandatory debt conversion, known as “conversione forzosa” during 1926, which they would again impose during 1934. They forced debt holders to extend their debt by lengthening the maturity. This seriously impacted the full faith and trust in the Italian government. During the post-1926 years and then again after 1934, the mandatory conversione forzosa effectively was seen as a partial default by the government, which made it extremely difficult and costly to borrow on a short-term basis thereafter.

Governments are concerned about appearance. They will mere engage in Forced Loan Conversions to be able to say with a straight face that they are not defaulting. Therefore, the shorter paper will have the greater risk in Europe from 2019 onward. Additionally, interest rates will be on the rise as pension funds fail and smart money continues to migrate from Public to Private debt.

Any asset allocation to bonds MUST be private!!!!!!! A government can default or suspend debt and will never be prosecuted. Private companies do not have that luxury. The traditional asset allocation models will all blow up. We are in the process of helping some very huge portfolios to shift in preparation of what is to come.

Apr 3 2018

Dollar Hegemony – Real or Sophistry?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized

Re-Posted Apr 3, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I really wish I found you sooner. A friend of mine has been telling me to listen. He bought the Dow at 17,000 and sold it 26,000 on your advice. He paid off his house and has told me – see, I told you so. I get these emails from the gold community who seem to never give up on every day will be the start of a new rally. This latest one also paints the United States as “dollar hegemony” and they claim that the US expanded greatly following the fall of the Soviet Union. They say China has woken up making money on trade with America. They now say the dollar will collapse and China will be the new world order so buy gold and sell the dollar.

These people seem to have no morals. They sleep perfectly fine raking in the money from people like me robbing us of our savings and preventing us from participating in the real economy as we should. Is there any real dollar hegemony or is this also just hot air?

WH

ANSWER: No, it is total nonsense and you are correct – it is designed to rob people of their life savings. There is no “dollar hegemony” for that assumes that the USA is somehow imposing the dollar upon the entire world by sheer will. History shows that the USA has pursued a policy of lowering the value of the dollar for trade purposes. Even the Plaza Accord in 1985 was a deliberate attempt to lower the dollar and it was at that meeting when the USA argued that Europe needed to create a single currency to compete with the dollar.

There is no competition with the dollar and that is the problem. The Fed wanted to raise interest rates back in 2014 but was lobbied by everyone not to. The Fed has lost control of the local economy because the domestic policy has been suppressed by international policy. The IMF, Europe, and emerging markets all pleaded with the Fed NOT to raise interest rates regardless of the domestic policy objectives.

This is complete sophistry and the arguments of people who really have no clue about how the global economy functions. I have been in meetings in Washington where I have been asked how to PREVENT the dollar from being the reserve currency. The answer is simple. There is no law that the USA can pass to bring about such a result.

It is coming. That will be the Monetary Crisis. But every such crisis has resulted in the dollar rising. That will bring the new monetary system. Not a lower dollar