By John Mauldin

Two years ago, my friend Mohamed El-Erian and I were on the stage at my Strategic Investment Conference. Naturally we were discussing currencies in the global economy, and I asked him about currency wars. He smiled and said to me, “John, we don’t talk about currency wars in polite circles. More like currency disagreements” (or some word to that effect).

This week I note that he actually uses the words currency war in an essay he wrote for Project Syndicate:

Yet the benefits of the dollar’s rally are far from guaranteed, for both economic and financial reasons. While the US economy is more resilient and agile than its developed counterparts, it is not yet robust enough to be able to adjust smoothly to a significant shift in external demand to other countries. There is also the risk that, given the role of the ECB and the Bank of Japan in shaping their currencies’ performance, such a shift could be characterized as a “currency war” in the US Congress, prompting a retaliatory policy response.

This is a short treatise, but as usual with Mohamed’s writing, it’s very thought provoking. Definitely Outside the Box material.

And for a two-part Outside the Box I want to take the unusual step of including an op-ed piece that you might not have seen, from the Wall Street Journal, called “How to Distort Income Inequality,” by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon. They cite research I’ve seen elsewhere which shows that the work by Thomas Piketty cherry-picks data and ignores total income and especially how taxes distort the data. That is not to say that income inequality does not exist and that we should not be cognizant and concerned, but we need to plan policy based on a firm grasp of reality and not overreact because of some fantasy world created by social provocateur academicians.

This weeks new video "How you can Profit from ETFs on the Unexpected Move in the Dollar".....Just Click Here

The calls for income redistribution from socialists and liberals based on Piketty’s work are clearly misguided and will further distort income inequality in ways that will only reduce total global productivity and growth.
I’m in New York today at an institutional fund manager conference where I had the privilege of hearing my good friend Ian Bremmer take us around the world on a geopolitical tour. Ian was refreshingly optimistic, or at least sanguine, about most of the world over the next few years. Lots of potential problems, of course, but he thinks everything should turn out fine – with the notable exception of Russia, where he is quite pessimistic.

A shirtless Vladimir Putin was the scariest thing on his geopolitical radar. As he spoke, Russia was clearly putting troops and arms into eastern Ukraine. Why would you do that if you didn’t intend to go further? Ian worried openly about Russia’s extending a land bridge all the way to Crimea and potentially even to Odessa, which is the heart of economic Ukraine, along with the Kiev region. It would basically make Ukraine ungovernable.

I thought Putin’s sadly grim and memorable line that “The United States is prepared to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” pretty much sums up the potential for a US or NATO response. Putin agreed to a cease-fire and assumed that sanctions would start to be lifted. When there was no movement on sanctions, he pretty much went back to square one. He has clearly turned his economic attention towards China.

Both Ian Bremmer and Mohamed El Erian will be at my Strategic Investment Conference next year, which will again be in San Diego in the spring, April 28-30. Save the dates in your calendar as you do not want to miss what is setting up to be a very special conference. We will get more details to you soon.

It is a very pleasant day here in New York, and I was able to avoid taxis and put in about six miles of pleasant walking. (Sadly, it is supposed to turn cold tomorrow.) I’ve gotten used to getting around in cities and slipping into the flow of things, but there was a time when I felt like the country mouse coming to the city. As I walked past St. Bart’s today I was reminded of an occasion when your humble analyst nearly got himself in serious trouble.

There is a very pleasant little outdoor restaurant at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, across the street from the side entrance of the Waldorf-Astoria. It was a fabulous day in the spring, and I was having lunch with my good friend Barry Ritholtz. The president (George W.) was in town and staying at the Waldorf. His entourage pulled up and Barry pointed and said, “Look, there’s the president.”

We were at the edge of the restaurant, so I stood up to see if I could see George. The next thing I know, Barry’s hand is on my shoulder roughly pulling me back into my seat. “Sit down!” he barked. I was rather confused – what faux pas I had committed? Barry pointed to two rather menacing, dark-suited figures who were glaring at me from inside the restaurant.

“They were getting ready to shoot you, John! They had their hands inside their coats ready to pull guns. They thought you were going to do something to the president!”

This was New York not too long after 9/11. The memory is fresh even today. Now, I think I would know better than to stand up with the president coming out the side door across the street. But back then I was still just a country boy come to the big city.

Tomorrow night I will have dinner with Barry and Art Cashin and a few other friends at some restaurant which is supposedly famous for a mob shooting back in the day. Art will have stories, I am sure.
It is time to go sing for my supper, and I will try not to keep the guests from enjoying what promises to be a fabulous meal from celebrity chef Cyrille Allannic. After Ian’s speech, I think I will be nothing but sweetness and light, just a harmless economic entertainer. After all, what could possibly go really wrong with the global economy, when you’re being wined and dined at the top of New York? Have a great week.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Boxsubscribers@mauldineconomics.com

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

The Return of the Dollar

By Mohamed El-Erian
Project Syndicate, Nov. 13, 2014

The U.S. dollar is on the move. In the last four months alone, it has soared by more than 7% compared with a basket of more than a dozen global currencies, and by even more against the euro and the Japanese yen. This dollar rally, the result of genuine economic progress and divergent policy developments, could contribute to the “rebalancing” that has long eluded the world economy. But that outcome is far from guaranteed, especially given the related risks of financial instability.

Two major factors are currently working in the dollar’s favor, particularly compared to the euro and the yen. First, the United States is consistently outperforming Europe and Japan in terms of economic growth and dynamism – and will likely continue to do so – owing not only to its economic flexibility and entrepreneurial energy, but also to its more decisive policy action since the start of the global financial crisis.

Second, after a period of alignment, the monetary policies of these three large and systemically important economies are diverging, taking the world economy from a multi-speed trajectory to a multi-track one. Indeed, whereas the US Federal Reserve terminated its large-scale securities purchases, known as “quantitative easing” (QE), last month, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank recently announced the expansion of their monetary-stimulus programs. In fact, ECB President Mario Draghi signaled a willingness to expand his institution’s balance sheet by a massive €1 trillion ($1.25 trillion).

With higher US market interest rates attracting additional capital inflows and pushing the dollar even higher, the currency’s revaluation would appear to be just what the doctor ordered when it comes to catalyzing a long-awaited global rebalancing – one that promotes stronger growth and mitigates deflation risk in Europe and Japan. Specifically, an appreciating dollar improves the price competitiveness of European and Japanese companies in the US and other markets, while moderating some of the structural deflationary pressure in the lagging economies by causing import prices to rise.

Yet the benefits of the dollar’s rally are far from guaranteed, for both economic and financial reasons. While the US economy is more resilient and agile than its developed counterparts, it is not yet robust enough to be able to adjust smoothly to a significant shift in external demand to other countries. There is also the risk that, given the role of the ECB and the Bank of Japan in shaping their currencies’ performance, such a shift could be characterized as a “currency war” in the US Congress, prompting a retaliatory policy response.

Furthermore, sudden large currency moves tend to translate into financial-market instability. To be sure, this risk was more acute when a larger number of emerging-economy currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which meant that a significant shift in the dollar’s value would weaken other countries’ balance of payments position and erode their international reserves, thereby undermining their creditworthiness. Today, many of these countries have adopted more flexible exchange-rate regimes, and quite a few retain adequate reserve holdings.

But a new issue risks bringing about a similarly problematic outcome: By repeatedly repressing financial-market volatility over the last few years, central-bank policies have inadvertently encouraged excessive risk-taking, which has pushed many financial-asset prices higher than economic fundamentals warrant. To the extent that continued currency-market volatility spills over into other markets – and it will – the imperative for stronger economic fundamentals to validate asset prices will intensify.

This is not to say that the currency re-alignment that is currently underway is necessarily a problematic development; on the contrary, it has the potential to boost the global economy by supporting the recovery of some of its most challenged components. But the only way to take advantage of the re-alignment’s benefits, without experiencing serious economic disruptions and financial-market volatility, is to introduce complementary growth-enhancing policy adjustments, such as accelerating structural reforms, balancing aggregate demand, and reducing or eliminating debt overhangs.

After all, global growth, at its current level, is inadequate for mere redistribution among countries to work. Overall global GDP needs to increase.

The US dollar’s resurgence, while promising, is only a first step. It is up to governments to ensure that the ongoing currency re-alignment supports a balanced, stable, and sustainable economic recovery. Otherwise, they may find themselves again in the unpleasant business of mitigating financial instability.

How to Distort Income Inequality

By Phil Gramm and Michael Solon
Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11, 2014

The Piketty-Saez data ignore changes in tax law and fail to count noncash compensation and Social Security benefits.

What the hockey-stick portrayal of global temperatures did in bringing a sense of crisis to the issue of global warming is now being replicated in the controversy over income inequality, thanks to a now-famous study by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, professors of economics at the Paris School of Economics and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively. Whether the issue is climate change or income inequality, however, problems with the underlying data significantly distort the debate.

The chosen starting point for the most-quoted part of the Piketty-Saez study is 1979. In that year the inflation rate was 13.3%, interest rates were 15.5% and the poverty rate was rising, but economic misery was distributed more equally than in any year since. That misery led to the election of Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies helped usher in 25 years of lower interest rates, lower inflation and high economic growth. But Messrs. Piketty and Saez tell us it was also a period where the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and only a relatively small number of Americans benefited from the economic booms of the Reagan and Clinton years.

If that dark picture doesn’t sound like the country you lived in, that’s because it isn’t. The Piketty-Saez study looked only at pretax cash market income. It did not take into account taxes. It left out noncash compensation such as employer-provided health insurance and pension contributions. It left out Social Security payments, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and more than 100 other means-tested government programs. Realized capital gains were included, but not the first $500,000 from the sale of one’s home, which is tax-exempt. IRAs and 401(k)s were counted only when the money is taken out in retirement. Finally, the Piketty-Saez data are based on individual tax returns, which ignore, for any given household, the presence of multiple earners.

And now, thanks to a new study in the Southern Economic Journal, we know what the picture looks like when the missing data are filled in. Economists Philip Armour and Richard V. Burkhauser of Cornell University and Jeff Larrimore of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation expanded the Piketty-Saez income measure using census data to account for all public and private in-kind benefits, taxes, Social Security payments and household size.

The result is dramatic. The bottom quintile of Americans experienced a 31% increase in income from 1979 to 2007 instead of a 33% decline that is found using a Piketty-Saez market-income measure alone. The income of the second quintile, often referred to as the working class, rose by 32%, not 0.7%. The income of the middle quintile, America’s middle class, increased by 37%, not 2.2%.

By omitting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Piketty-Saez study renders most older Americans poor when in reality most have above-average incomes. The exclusion of benefits like employer-provided health insurance, retirement benefits (except when actually paid out in retirement) and capital gains on homes misses much of the income and wealth of middle- and upper-middle income families.

Messrs. Piketty and Saez also did not take into consideration the effect that tax policies have on how people report their incomes. This leads to major distortions. The bipartisan tax reform of 1986 lowered the highest personal tax rate to 28% from 50%, but the top corporate-tax rate was reduced only to 34%. There was, therefore, an incentive to restructure businesses from C-Corps to subchapter S corporations, limited liability corporations, partnerships and proprietorships, where the same income would now be taxed only once at a lower, personal rate. As businesses restructured, what had been corporate income poured into personal income-tax receipts.

So Messrs. Piketty and Saez report a 44% increase in the income earned by the top 1% in 1987 and 1988—though this change reflected how income was taxed, not how income had grown. This change in the structure of American businesses alone accounts for roughly one-third of what they portray as the growth in the income share earned by the top 1% of earners over the entire 1979-2012 period.

An equally extraordinary distortion in the data used to measure inequality (the Gini Coefficient) has been discovered by Cornell’s Mr. Burkhauser. In 1992 the Census Bureau changed the Current Population Survey to collect more in-depth data on high-income individuals. This change in survey technique alone, causing a one-time upward shift in the measured income of high-income individuals, is the source of almost 30% of the total growth of inequality in the U.S. since 1979.

Simple statistical errors in the data account for roughly one third of what is now claimed to be a “frightening” increase in income inequality. But the weakness of the case for redistribution does not end there. America is the freest and most dynamic society in history, and freedom and equality of outcome have never coexisted anywhere at any time. Here the innovator, the first mover, the talented and the persistent win out—producing large income inequality. The prizes are unequal because in our system consumers reward people for the value they add. Some can and do add extraordinary value, others can’t or don’t.

How exactly are we poorer because Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and the Walton family are so rich? Mr. Gates became rich by mainstreaming computer power into our lives and in the process made us better off. Mr. Buffett’s genius improves the efficiency of capital allocation and the whole economy benefits. Wal-Mart stretches our buying power and raises the living standards of millions of Americans, especially low-income earners. Rich people don’t “take” a large share of national income, they “bring” it. The beauty of our system is that everybody benefits from the value they bring.

Yes, income is 24% less equally distributed here than in the average of the other 34 member countries of the OECD. But OECD figures show that U.S. per capita GDP is 42% higher, household wealth is 210% higher and median disposable income is 42% higher. How many Americans would give up 42% of their income to see the rich get less?

Vast new fortunes were earned in the 25-year boom that began under Reagan and continued under Clinton. But the income of middle-class Americans rose significantly. These incomes have fallen during the Obama presidency, and not because the rich have gotten richer. They’ve fallen because bad federal policies have yielded the weakest recovery in the postwar history of America.

Yet even as the recovery continues to disappoint, the president increasingly turns to the politics of envy by demanding that the rich pay their “fair share.” The politics of envy may work here as it has worked so often in Latin America and Europe, but the economics of envy is failing in America as it has failed everywhere else.

Mr. Gramm, a former Republican senator from Texas, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon was a budget adviser to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and is a partner of US Policy Metrics.

Like Outside the Box?

Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

Important Disclosures

The article Outside the Box: The Return of the Dollar was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Mark Twain: History Doesn't Repeat Itself....But it Does Rhyme. Gold, Vanderbilt and More

By John Mauldin

“The significant problems that we have created cannot be solved at the level of thinking we were at when we created them.”– Albert Einstein

“Generals are notorious for their tendency to ‘fight the last war’ – by using the strategies and tactics of the past to achieve victory in the present. Indeed, we all do this to some extent. Life's lessons are hard won, and we like to apply them – even when they don't apply. Sadly enough, fighting the last war is often a losing proposition. Conditions change. Objectives change. Strategies change. And you must change. If you don't, you lose.”– Dr. G. Terry Madonna and Dr. Michael Young

“Markets are perpetuating a serious error by acting on the belief that central bankers actually know what they are doing. They do not. Not because they are ill-intentioned but because they are human and subject to the limitations that apply to all human endeavors. If you want proof of their fallibility, simply look at their economic forecasts. Despite their efforts to do so, central banks can’t repeal the business cycle (though they can distort it). While the 2008 financial crisis should have taught them that lesson, it appears to have led them to precisely the opposite conclusion.

“There are limits to knowledge in every field, including the hard sciences, and economics is not a hard science; it is a social science whose knowledge is imprecise, and practitioners’ ability to predict the future is extremely limited. Fed officials are attempting to guide an extremely complex economy with tools of questionable utility, and markets are ignoring their warnings that their ability to manage a positive outcome is highly uncertain. Markets are confusing what they want to happen with what is likely to happen, a common psychological phenomenon. Investors who prosper in the long run will be those who acknowledge the severe limits of economic knowledge and the compelling evidence that trillions of dollars of QE and years of zero interest rates may have saved the system from immediate collapse five years ago but failed to produce sustained economic growth or long-term price stability.”– Michael Lewitt, The Credit Strategist, Nov. 1, 2014

As I predicted months ago in this letter and last year in Code Red, the Japanese have launched another missile in their ongoing currency war, somewhat fittingly on Halloween. Rather than being spooked, the markets saw it as just another round of feel good quantitative easing and climbed to all-time highs on the Dow and S&P 500. The Nikkei soared even more (for good reason). As we will see later in this letter, this is not your father’s quantitative easing. The Japanese, for reasons of their own, will intervene not only in their own equity markets but in foreign equity markets as well, and do so in a size and manner that will be significant. This gambit is going to have ramifications far beyond merely weakening the yen. In this week’s letter we are going to take an in depth look at what the Japanese have done.

It is something of a cliché to quote Mark Twain’s “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” But it is an appropriate way to kick things off, since we are going to look at the “ancient” history of Mark Twain’s era, and specifically the Panic of 1873. That October saw the beginning of 65 months of recession (certainly longer than our generation’s own Great Recession), which inflicted massive pain on the country. The initial cause was government monetary intervention, but the crisis was deepened by soaring debt and deflation.
As we seek to understand what happened 141 years ago, we’ll revisit the phenomenon of October as a month of negative market surprises. It actually has its roots in the interplay between farming and banking.

The Panic of 1873

Shortly after the Civil War, which saw the enactment of federal fiat money (the “greenback” of that era, issued to finance the war), there was a federal law passed that required rural and agricultural banks to keep 25% of their deposits with certain certified national banks, which were based mainly in New York. The national banks were required to pay interest on those deposits, so they had to put the money out for loans. But because those deposits were “callable” at any time, there was a limit to the types of loans they could do, as long-term loans mismatched assets and liabilities.

The brokers of the New York Stock Exchange were considered an excellent target for such loans. They could use the proceeds of the loans as margin to buy stocks, either for their own trading or on behalf of their clients. As long as the stocks went up – or at the very least as long as the ultimate clients were liquid – there wasn’t a problem for the national banks. Money could be repatriated; or, if necessary, margins could be called in a day. But this was before the era of a central bank, so actual physical dollars (and other physical instruments) were involved as reserves, as was gold. Greenbacks could be used to buy gold, but at a rate that floated. The price of gold could fluctuate significantly from year to year, depending upon the availability of gold and the supply of greenbacks (and of course, market sentiment – which certainly rhymes with our own time).

The driver for October volatility was an annual cycle, an ebb and flow of dollars to and from these rural banks. In the fall when the harvest was ready, the country banks would recall their margin loans in order to pay farmers or loan to merchants to buy crops from farmers and ship them via the railroads. Money would then become tight on Wall Street as the national banks called their loans back in.

This cycle often caused extra volatility, depending on the shortness of loan capital. Margin rates could rise to as much as 1% per day! Of course, this would force speculators to sell their stocks or cover their shorts, but in general it could drive down prices and make margin calls more likely. This monetary tightening often sent stocks into a downward spiral – not unlike the downward pressure that present-day Fed tightening actions have exerted, but in a compressed period of time.

If there was enough leverage in the system, a cascade could result, with stocks dropping 20% very quickly. Since much of Wall Street was involved in railroads, and railroads were nothing if not leveraged loans and capital, falling asset prices would reduce the ability of investors in railroads to find the necessary capital for expansion and maintenance of operations.

This historical pattern no longer explains the present-day vulnerability of markets in October. Perhaps the phenomenon persists simply due to market lore and investor psychology. Like an amputee feeling a twinge in his lost limb, do we still sense the ghosts of crashes past?

(And once more with Mark Twain: “October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February.”)

It was in this fall environment that a young Jay Gould decided to manipulate the gold market in the autumn of 1873, creating a further squeeze on the dollar. Not only would he profit off a play in gold, but he thought the move would help him in his quest to take control of the Erie Railroad. Historian Charles R. Morris explains, in a fascinating book called The Tycoons

Gould’s mind ran in labyrinthine channels, and he turned to the gold markets as part of a strategy to improve Erie’s freights. Grain was America’s largest export in 1869. Merchants purchased grain from farmers on credit, shipped it overseas, and paid off the farmers when they received their remittances from abroad. Their debt to the farmers was in greenbacks, but their receipts from abroad came in gold, for the greenback was not legal tender overseas. It could take weeks, or even months, to complete a transaction, so the merchant was exposed to changes in the gold/greenback exchange rate during that time. If gold fell (or the greenback rose), the merchant’s gold proceeds might not cover his greenback debts.

The New York Gold Exchange was created to help merchants protect against that risk. Using the Exchange, a merchant could borrow gold when he made his contract, convert it to greenbacks, and pay off his suppliers right away. Then he would pay off the gold loan when his gold payment came in some weeks later; since it was gold for gold, exchange rates didn’t matter. To protect against default, the Exchange required full cash collateral to borrow gold. But that was an opening for speculations by clever traders like Gould. If a trader bought gold and then immediately lent it, he could finance his purchase with the cash collateral and thereby acquire large positions while using very little of his own cash.

[Note from JM: In the fall there was plenty of demand for gold and a shortage of greenbacks. It was the perfect time if you wanted to create a “corner” on gold.]

Gould reasoned that if he could force up the price of gold, he might improve the Erie’s freight revenues. If gold bought more greenbacks, greenback-priced wheat would look cheaper to overseas buyers, so exports, and freights, would rise. And because of the fledgling status of the new Gold Exchange, gold prices looked eminently manipulable, since only about $20 million in gold was usually available in New York. [Some of his partners in the conspiracy were skeptical because…] The Grant administration, which had just taken office in March, was sitting on $100 million in gold reserves. If gold started suddenly rising, it would hurt merchant importers, who could be expected to clamor for government gold sales.

So Gould went to President Grant’s brother-in-law, Abel Corbin, who liked to brag about his family influence. He set up a meeting with President Grant, at which Gould learned that Grant was cautious about any significant movements in either the gold or the greenback, noting the “fictitiousness about the prosperity of the country and that the bubble might be tapped in one way as well as another.” That was discouraging: popping a bubble meant tighter money and lower gold.

But Gould plunged ahead with his gold buying, including rather sizable amounts for Corbin’s wife (Grant’s wife’s sister), such that each one-dollar rise in gold would generate $11,000 in profits. Corbin arranged further meetings with Grant and discouraged him from selling gold all throughout September.

Gould and his partners initiated a “corner” in the gold market. This was actually legal at the time, and the NY gold market was relatively small compared to the amount of capital it was possible for a large, well-organized cabal to command. True corners were devastating to bears, as they generally borrowed shares or gold to sell short, betting on the fall in price. Just as today, if the price falls too much, then the short seller can buy the stock back and take his losses. But if there is no stock to buy back, if someone has cornered the market, then losses can be severe. Which of course is what today we call a short squeeze.

The short position grew to some $200 million, most of it owed to Gould and his friends. But there was only $20 million worth of gold available to cover the short sales. That gold stock had been borrowed and borrowed and borrowed again. The price of gold rose as Gould’s cabal kept pressing their bet.

But Grant got wind of the move. His wife wrote her sister, demanding to know if the rumor of their involvement was true. Corbin panicked and told Gould he wanted out, with his $100,000+ of profits, of course. Gould promised him his profits if he would just keep quiet.

Then Gould began to unload all his gold positions, even as some of his partners kept right on buying. You have to keep up pretenses, of course. Gould was telling his partners to push the price up to 160, while he was selling through another set of partners.

It is a small irony that Gould also had a contact in the government in Washington (a Mr. Butterfield) who assured him that there was no move to sell gold from DC, even as that contact was personally selling all his gold as fast as he could. Whatever bad you could say about Gould (and there were lots of bad things you could say), his trading instincts were good. He sensed his contact was lying and doubled down on getting out of the trade. In the end, Gould didn’t make any money to speak of and in fact damaged his intention of getting control of the Erie Railroad that fall.

The attempted gold corner didn’t do much harm to the country in and of itself. But when President Grant decided to step in and sell gold, there was massive buying, which sucked a significant quantity of physical dollars out of the market and into the US Treasury at a time when dollars were short. This move was a clumsy precursor to the open-market operations of the Federal Reserve of today, except that those dollars were needed as margin collateral by brokerage companies. No less than 14 New York Stock Exchange brokerages went bankrupt within a few days, not including brokerages that dealt just in gold.

All this happened in the fall, when there were fewer physical dollars to be had.

The price of gold collapsed. Cornelius Vanderbilt, who was often at odds with Jay Gould, had to step into the market (literally – that is, physically, which was rare for him) in order to quell the panic and provide capital, a precursor to J.P. Morgan’s doing the same during the Panic of 1907.

While many today believe the Fed should never have been created, we have not lived through those periods of panics and crashes. And while I think the Fed now acts in ways that are inappropriate (how can 12 FOMC board members purport to fine-tune an economic cycle, let alone solve employment problems?), the one true and proper role of the Fed is to provide liquidity in time of a crisis.

“People Who Live Too Much on Credit”

At the end of the day, it was too much debt that was the problem in 1873. Cornelius Vanderbilt was quoted in the epic book The First Tycoon as saying (emphasis mine)

I’ll tell you what’s the matter – people undertake to do about four times as much business as they can legitimately undertake.… There are a great many worthless railroads started in this country without any means to carry them through. Respectable banking houses in New York, so called, make themselves agents for sale of the bonds of the railroads in question and give a kind of moral guarantee of their genuineness. The bonds soon reach Europe, and the markets of their commercial centres, from the character of the endorsers, are soon flooded with them.… When I have some money I buy railroad stock or something else, but I don’t buy on credit. I pay for what I get. People who live too much on credit generally get brought up with a round turn in the long run. The Wall Street averages ruin many a man there, and is like faro.”

In the wake of Gould’s shenanigans, President Grant came to New York to assess the damage; and eventually his Secretary of the Treasury decided to buy $30 million of bonds in a less clumsy precursor to Federal Reserve open market operations, trying to inject some liquidity back into the markets. This was done largely as a consequence of a conversation with Vanderbilt, who offered to put up $10 million of his own, a vast sum at the time.

But the damage was done. The problem of liquidity was created by too much debt, as Vanderbilt noted. That debt inflated assets, and when those assets fell in price, so did the net worth of the borrowers. Far too much debt had to be worked off, and the asset price crash precipitated a rather deep depression, leaving in its wake far greater devastation than the recent Great Recession did. It took many years for the deleveraging process to work out. Sound familiar?

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

Important Disclosures

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Rhyme and Reason was originally published at mauldin economics

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

What You and Monica Lewinsky Might Have in Common

By Dennis Miller

Collateral damage can assume many forms—and though some may be more newsworthy than others, the latter are no less real, nor any less frightening.


On Tuesday, controversial radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called Monica Lewinsky “collateral damage in Hillary Clinton’s war on women,” saying that President Bill Clinton and his wife destroyed the former White House intern “after he got his jollies, after he got his consensual whatevers.”

Last month, Jeremy Grantham, cofounder of GMO, a Boston based asset management firm that oversees $112 billion in client funds, dubbed savers “collateral damage” of quantitative easing and the Federal Reserve’s continued commitment to low interest rates.

Would it be worse to be known as the “president’s mistress” for more than a decade and, as Lewinsky claims, to be unable to find a normal job? Maybe. But it’s no laughing matter either to find yourself penniless in your “golden years.”

Signs of Monetary Collateral Damage Among Seniors

 

The 55-plus crowd accounts for 22% of all bankruptcy filings in the U.S.—up 12% from just 13 years ago—and seniors age 65 and up are the fastest growing population segment seeking bankruptcy protection. Given the wounds bankruptcy inflicts on your credit, reputation, and pride, it’s safe to assume those filing have exhausted all feasible alternatives.

But even seniors in less dire straits are finding it difficult to navigate low interest rate waters. Thirty seven percent of 65 to 74 year olds still had a mortgage or home equity line of credit in 2010, up from 21% in 1989. For those 75 and older, that number jumped from 2% to 21% during the same timeframe—another mark of a debt filled retirement becoming the norm. With an average balance of $9,300 as of 2012, the 65 plus cohort is also carrying more credit card debt than any other age group.

While climbing out of a $9,300 hole isn’t impossible, the national average credit card APR of 15% sure makes it difficult. For those with bad credit, that rate jumps to 22.73%—not quite the same as debtor’s prison, but close.

None of this points to an aging population adjusting its money habits to thrive under the Fed’s low interest rate regime.

Minimize Your Part of Comparative Negligence

 

A quick side note on tort law. Most states have some breed of the comparative negligence rule on the books. This means a jury can reduce the monetary award it awards a tort plaintiff by the percentage of the plaintiff’s fault. Bob’s Pontiac hits Mildred’s Honda, causing Mildred to break her leg. Mildred sues Bob and the jury awards her $100,000, but also finds she was 7% at fault for the accident. Mildred walks with $93,000. (Actually, Mildred walks with $62,000 and her lawyer with $31,000, but I digress.)

Comparative-negligence rules exist because when a bad thing happens, the injured party may be partly responsible. For someone planning for retirement, the bad thing at issue is too much debt and too little savings. Through low interest rates, the Federal Reserve is responsible for X% of the problem.

Though ex-Fed chief Bernanke doesn’t seem to see it that way—in a dinner conversation with hedge fund manager David Einhorn, he asserted that raising interest rates to benefit savers wouldn’t be the right move for the economy because it would require borrowers to pay more for capital. Well, there you have it. And there’s nothing you can do about that X%. You can, however, reduce or eliminate your contribution.
In other words, you don’t have to be collateral damage; you can affect how your life plays out.

Money Lessons from Zen Buddhism

 

This might sound like a “duh” statement, but it bears repeating from time to time. Inheritance windfall from that great-aunt in Des Moines you’d forgotten about aside, there are two ways to eliminate debt and retire well: spend less or make more.

Rising healthcare costs, emergency car repairs, and the like are real impediments to reducing your bills. Costs rooted in attempts to “keep up with the Joneses,” however, are avoidable. Those attempts are also futile. A new, even richer Mr. Jones is always around the bend.

Instead of overspending for show, make like a Buddhist and let go of your attachment to things and your ego about owning them. Spring for that Zen rock garden if you must and start raking.

One of the wealthier men I know drove around for years with a gardening glove as a makeshift cover for his Peugeot’s worn out, stick shift knob. It looked shabby, but this man wasn’t a car guy and had no need to impress. As far as I know, the gardening glove worked just fine until he finally donated the car to charity and happily took his tax deduction. Maintaining your car isn’t overspending, but you catch my drift. Dropping efforts to show off can benefit us all.

That said, keeping up isn’t always about show. You may feel pressure to overspend just to be able to enjoy time with your friends and family. Maybe you can no longer afford the annual Vail ski week with your in laws or the flight to Hawaii for your nephew’s bar mitzvah. Maybe your friends are hosting caviar dinners, but you’re now on a McDonald’s budget and can no longer participate.

Spending less in order to stay within your budget can mean missing out on experiences, not just stuff. If you’re in this camp, there’s no reason to hang your head. As I mentioned above, you can spend less or you can make more. The latter is far more fun.

An Investment Strategy to Prevent You from Becoming Collateral Damage

 

While it’s tempting to start speculating with your retirement money, resist. If you have non-retirement dollars to play with and the constitution to handle it, carefully curated speculative investments can give you a welcome boost. However, if all of your savings is allocated for retirement, just don’t do it.

Unless you’re still working, how, then, can you make more money in a low-interest-rate world? At present, my team of analysts and I recommend investing your retirement dollars via the 50-20-30 approach:

• 50%: Sector diversified equities providing growth and income and a high margin of safety.
• 20%: Investments made for higher yield coupled with appropriate stop losses.
• 30%: Conservative, stable income vehicles.

No single investment should make up more than 5% of your retirement portfolio.

Whether you’re designing your retirement blueprint from scratch or want to apply our 50-20-30 strategy to your existing plan, the Miller’s Money team can help. Each Thursday enjoy exclusive updates on unique investing and retirement topics by signing up for my free weekly newsletter.

Don’t let the Fed’s anti-senior and anti-saver policies unravel your retirement.  

Click here to start receiving Miller’s Money Weekly today.

The article Collateral Damage: What You and Monica Lewinsky Have in Common was originally published at Millers Money

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Listening to the Canary

By Terry Coxon, Senior Economist

During World War II, the British Royal Air Force (RAF) undertook a plan of misdirection to allow a squadron of bombers to approach an exceptionally valuable target in Europe undetected. The target was so heavily guarded that destroying it would require more than the usual degree of surprise.


Although the RAF was equipped to jam the electronic detection of aircraft along the route to the target (a primitive forebear of radar was then in use), they feared that the jamming itself would alert the defending forces. Their solution was to “train” the defending German personnel to believe something that wasn't true. The RAF had a great advantage in undertaking the training: The intended trainees were operating equipment that was novel and far from reliable; and those operators were trying to interpret signals without the help of direct observation, such as actually seeing what they were charged with detecting.

At sunrise on the first day, the RAF broadcast a jamming signal for just a fraction of minute. On the second day, it broadcast a jamming signal for a bit longer than a minute, also around sunrise. On each successive day, it sent the signal for a somewhat longer and longer time, but always starting just before sunrise.

The training continued for nearly three months, and the German radar personnel interpreted the signals their equipment gave them in just the way the British intended. They concluded that their equipment operates poorly in the atmospheric conditions present at sunrise and that the problem grows as the season progresses. That mistaken inference allowed an RAF squadron to fly unnoticed far enough into Europe to destroy the target.

People will get used to almost anything if it goes on for long enough. And the getting-used-to-it process doesn't take long at all if it's something that people don't understand well and that they can't experience directly. They hear about Quantitative Easing and money printing and government deficits, but they never see those things happening in plain view, unlike a car wreck or burnt toast, and they never feel it happening to themselves.

QE has become just a story, and it's been going on for so long that it has no scare value left. That's why so few investors notice that the present situation of the U.S. economy and world investment markets is beyond unusual. The situation is weird, and dangerously so. But we've all gotten used to it.

Here are the four main points of weirdness:

1. The Federal Reserve is still fleeing the ghost of the dot-com bubble. It was so worried that the collapse of the dot-com bubble (beginning in March 2000) would damage the economy that it stepped hard on the monetary accelerator. The growth rate of the M1 money supply jumped from near 0% to near 10%. This had the hoped for result of making the recession that began the following year brief and mild.

2. A nice result, if that had been all. But there was more. Injecting a big dose of money to inoculate the economy against recession set off a bubble in the housing market. Starting in 2003, the Fed began gradually lowering the growth rate of the money supply to cool the rise in housing prices. That, too, produced the intended result; in 2006, housing prices began drifting lower.
   
   But again, there was a further consequence—the financial collapse that began in 2008. This time, the Federal Reserve stomped on the monetary accelerator with both feet, and the growth of the money supply hit a year-over-year rate of 21%. It's still growing rapidly, at an annual rate of 9%.

3. The nonstop expansion of the money supply since 2008 has kept money market interest close to zero. Rates on longer-term debt aren't zero but are extraordinarily low. The ten-year Treasury bond currently yields just 2.7%; that's up from a low of 1.7%.
   
   The flow of new money has been irrigating all financial markets. In the U.S., stocks and bonds tremble at each hint the Fed is going to turn the faucet down just a little. And it's not just US markets that are affected. When credit in the US is ultra cheap, billions are borrowed here and invested elsewhere, all around the world, which pushes up investment prices almost everywhere.

4. US federal debt management is living on borrowed time. The deficit for 2013 was only $600 billion, down from trillion dollar plus levels of recent years. But this less terrible than before figure was achieved only by the grace of extraordinarily low interest rates, which limit the cost of servicing existing government debt. Should interest rates rise, less than terrible will seem like happy times.

Almost no one imagines that the current situation can continue indefinitely. But is there a way for it to end nicely? For most investors, the expectation (or perhaps just the hope) that things can gracefully return to normal rests on confidence that the people in charge, especially the Federal Reserve governors, are really, really smart and know what they're doing. The best minds are on the job.

If the best minds were in charge of designing a bridge, I would expect the bridge to hold up well even in a storm. If the best minds were in charge of designing an airplane, I would expect it to fly reliably. But if the best minds were in charge of something no one really knows how to do, I would be ready for a failure, albeit a failure with superb academic credentials.

Despite all the mathematics that has been spray-painted on it, economics isn't a modern science. It's a primitive science still weighted with cherished beliefs and unproven dogma. It's in about the same stage of development today that medicine was in the 17th century, when the best minds of science were arguing whether the blood circulates through the body or just sits in the veins. Today economists argue whether newly created cash will circulate through the economy or just sit in the hands of the recipients.

Let's look at the puzzle the best minds now face.

If the Federal Reserve were simply to continue on with the money printing that began in 2008, the economy would continue its slow recovery, with unemployment drifting lower and lower. Then the accumulated increase in the money supply would start pushing up the rate of price inflation, and it would push hard. Only a sharp and prolonged slowdown in monetary growth would rein in price inflation. But that would be reflected in much higher interest rates, which would push the federal deficit back above the trillion dollar mark and also push the economy back into recession.

So the Fed is trying something else. They’ve begun the so called taper, which is a slowing of the growth of the money supply. Their hope is that if they go about it with sufficient precision and delicacy, they can head off catastrophic price inflation without undoing the recovery. What is their chance of success?

My unhappy answer is "very low." The reason is that they aren't dealing with a linear system. It's not like trying to squeeze just the right amount of lemon juice into your iced tea. With that task, even if you don't get a perfect result, being a drop or two off the ideal won't produce a bad result. Tinkering with the money supply, on the other hand, is more like disarming a bomb—and going about it according to the current theory as to whether it's the blue wire or the red wire that needs to be cut means a small failure isn’t possible.

Adjusting the growth of the money supply sets off multiple reactions, some of which can come back to bite. Suppose, for example, that the taper proceeds with such a light touch that the U.S. economy doesn't tank. But that won't be the end of the story. Stock and bond markets in most countries have been living on the Fed's money printing. The touch that's light enough for the U.S. markets might pull the props out from under foreign markets—which would have consequences for foreign economies that would feed back into the U.S. through investment losses by U.S. investors, loan defaults against U.S. lenders, and damage to U.S. export markets. With that feedback, even the light touch could turn out not to have been light enough.

To see what the consequences of economic mismanagement can be, and how stealthily disaster can creep up on you, watch the 30 minute documentary, Meltdown America. Witness the harrowing tales of three ordinary people who lived through a crisis, and how their experiences warn of the turmoil that could soon reach the US. Click here to watch it now.

The article Listening to the Canary was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Fundamentals Rendered Irrelevant by Fed Actions: Probability Based Option Trading

The fundamental backdrop behind the ramp higher in equity prices in 2013 is far from inspiring. However, fundamentals do not matter when the Federal Reserve is flooding U.S. financial markets with an ocean of freshly printed fiat dollars.

As we approach the holiday season, retail stores are usually in a position of strength. However, this year holiday sales are expected to be lower than the previous year based on analysts commentary and surveys that have been completed. This holiday season analysts are not expecting strong sales growth. However, in light of all of this U.S. stocks continue to move higher.

Earnings growth, sales growth, or strong management are irrelevant in determining price action in today’s stock market. In fact, the entire business cycle has been replaced with the quantitative easing and a Federal Reserve that is inflating two massive bubbles simultaneously.

Through artificially low interest rates largely resulting from bond buying, the Federal Reserve has created a bubble in Treasury bonds. In addition to the Treasury bubble, we are seeing wild price action in equity markets as hot money flows seek a higher return. Usually fundamentals such as earnings, earnings estimates, and profitability drive stock prices.

However, as can be here the U.S. stock market is being driven by something totally different......Read "Fundamentals Rendered Irrelevant by Fed Actions: Probability Based Option Trading"



Get our "Options Trading Test Drive Today"

The Headline Data that Financial Media Ignored on Wednesday

Wednesday was a wild trading session where we saw the largest intraday selloff in the S&P 500 E-Mini futures that we have seen in some time. Intraday price action was driven largely by statements made by Chairman Bernanke and the release of the Federal Reserve Meeting Minutes which saw some monster intraday moves and a large spike in the Volatility Index (VIX).

While the world is focused on when the Federal Reserve is going to taper their Quantitative Easing program and the impact those actions will have on financial markets, I wanted to look at another divergence in the economic data which is supported by market action.

Instead of trying to determine how or when the Federal Reserve will taper or end their monetary experiment, I wanted to juxtapose statements that were made today with the actual facts. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Recently, we have been told that the housing market is in the early stages of recovery. Unfortunately due to low interest rates housing has turned back into a speculative market. Consequently, a lot of so called fast money is flowing into housing which in many cases is either being purchased for rentals or by foreign investors as a speculative investment.

At present the housing market is not being driven by capital formation at the household level and data indicates that construction jobs are under pressure and affordability is reversing.

This first chart illustrates what has recently transpired in the 10 Year Treasury Yield.....Click here to read J.W. Jones' entire article and view his charts for "The Headline Data that Financial Media Ignored on Wednesday"


Let J.W. show you how to trade options for monthly income. Includes current setups.


FREE BOOK - Profitable Options Strategies for Monthly Income

Silver Suffers The Most From Bernanke And What Is Next

Test drive our video analysis and trade idea service for only $1.00

While the exchange traded funds for gold and copper fell today due to investors expressing disappoint at the modest response of the Federal Reserve to declining economic growth, it was silver that was off the most.

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) fell in trading today by 0.89%. IPath Dow Jones Copper (JJC) dropped 1.89%.  Plunging the deepest was iShares Silver Trust (SLV), off by 2.14%.

Traders were hoping for more aggressive action by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But that will not come until after the November elections in the United States. Remember that Quantitative Easing 2 did not begin until November 2010, though it was announced at the Jackson Hole economic policy summit in August of 2010.

Silver is in what would seem to be the “sweet spot” between gold and copper.  Almost all of gold is used for investment or decorative purposes.  Almost all of The Red Metal goes for industrial needs.   For silver, it comes almost down right in the middle between commercial and a commodity for investments or jewelry.  The charts below show the trading relationship for each of the exchange traded funds when paired against each other.

Even though silver has a much higher industrial usage, the SLV moves along with the GLD.   As a result, it soared during Quantitative Easing 2.  Obviously, the charts reveal that most of the trading is from speculators as the JJC should move in an inverse relationship with the GLD.  That is due to gold being used almost entirely for non-industrial end uses while copper is used almost industrial for industrial uses.

Up slightly for the week as traders thought more dramatic economic stimulus efforts would result from the Federal Open Market Committee meeting  other than an extension until the end of the year for Operation Twist, the SLV is down for the last month, quarter, six months and 52 weeks of market action.  Year to date, the SLV is off by 1.48%.

For the last year, however, the SLV is down 33.35%.  Volume was up today, with the SLV below its 20 day, 50 day and 200 day moving averages.  In the most obvious trend, it is trading much lower under its 200 day day moving average at 11.67% down than underneath the 20 day moving average, beneath it by only 0.17%.  The only move worth noting in the technical indicators for silver were the long engulfing green bodies last week after Treasury Secretary Geithner’s  gloomy testimony on The Hill and more bad economic news from the US peaked buying as traders thought Quantitative Easing 3 was coming.

If traders long on silver are looking for help from Bernanke, it will not be coming until after the November election, though it could be announced when he speaks later this month at Jackson Hole.

Chris Vermeulen


Just click here to sign up for Chris' Newsletter and free market videos

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

J.W. Jones: Understanding The Key Support Levels For Gold

Gold bulls and inquiring minds are perplexed by last week’s mayhem in the precious metals markets. In addition to gold and silver, copper prices also went into free fall last week which is an ominous sign for the broader economy in general. We live in interesting times as geopolitical uncertainty, social acrimony, and financial collapse shape the world around us.

The situation in Europe continues to worsen and central banks and wealthy individuals are trying to find safe havens to protect their wealth. Most gold bugs believed that gold and silver would be the answer, but in this environment that hypothesis did not play out. In addition, the Federal Reserve came out with operation twist which market participants despised. Since the 3rd round of Quantitative Easing was not announced, risk assets such as the S&P 500, gold, and silver sold off sharply.

Many gold investors believed that gold is a “safety” trade. I would agree with them if the objective is to remain “safe” from ever rising inflation. In a “run for the exits” sell off caused by deflationary pressure and debt destruction, gold will generally show relative strength versus equities. However, I would remind readers that during the deflationary period back in 2008, gold held up far better than the S&P 500, but prices were volatile.

The gold futures chart from 2008 is shown below:

As can be seen from the chart above, gold futures were volatile throughout 2008 with the March high point representing a 19.83% gain for the year. The low point for gold futures in 2008 was in October and represented a loss of 21.07%. The total return for gold futures in 2008 was 1.94%. Clearly gold futures showed volatility throughout 2008, but gold clearly outperformed the S&P 500 during the same period of time.

The S&P 500 was lower by 37% in 2008, thus gold was clearly the safer asset during 2008 in terms of return. However, one asset class was safer still and had considerably less volatility . . . the U.S. Dollar. In 2008, the U.S. Dollar index futures closed the year with gains around 8.44% with far less volatility than gold or the S&P 500. I am pointing this out to readers because a similar situation is unfolding presently.

Moving forward to the present, the U.S. Dollar Index futures have put on an impressive rally that started back on August 30, 2011. Since August 30th, the Dollar Index futures are trading higher by around 7%. As it turns out, on August 31st I entered a long call ratio spread using the UUP ETF with members of my service and we were able to lock in a gain of around 30% recently.

The daily chart of the U.S. Dollar Index futures is shown below:

All of the calls for hyperinflation in 2011 and a massive crisis in the U.S. Dollar are not coming to fruition. In fact, the opposite is occurring as deflationary pressures are helping force the U.S. Dollar higher. I would point out that the majority of economists and analysts were all predicting hyperinflation for several years and so far they have been wrong. Gold nor any other asset can rally forever, but long term investors must understand that even during a raging bull market corrections and pullbacks are commonplace and healthy.

I want to point out that I sent out multiple articles warning about the possibility that gold prices could sell off or correct dramatically. In every instance, my email inbox was littered with hate mail and vitriolic remarks from gold bugs. Back on August 29th, I wrote the following in my article, What Could Lie Ahead for the S&P 500 and Gold:

“There is an ominous pattern starting to form on the gold daily chart which if it is carved out and triggered, it could produce the next leg of this selloff.”

The daily chart of gold is shown below:

“While it is far too early to determine if a head and shoulders pattern will be carved out or if lower prices take place, I am of the opinion that this selloff will offer an attractive entry point for longer term investors. At this point it is a bit too early to get involved, but if my analysis is accurate the next leg of the gold bull market will be potentially extreme.”

As it turns out, the head and shoulders pattern did not play out as I had hypothesized but a double top did emerge which ultimately produced similar price action. The extreme nature of the recent sell off backs up my analysis in that gold prices had gone parabolic and we needed to see regression back to the mean in terms of price.

We are seeing that process unfold now, but as I stated in the article above the completion of this sell off is going to offer an attractive entry point for long term gold investors. While I have routinely discussed pullbacks and corrections regarding gold, I continue to be a longer term bull.

Gold has sold off sharply in the past week, but the following chart illustrates some key support levels for the yellow metal:

While gold and silver sold off sharply, the S&P 500 was also under extreme pressure. My most recent article written on September 21 prior to the Federal Reserve announcement illustrated two outcomes based on what rhetoric came from the meeting. Unfortunately for equity investors my downside prognosis is holding sway. The follow is an excerpt from my article entitled The S&P 500 & the Dollar Ahead of the Fed Statement:

“The flip side of that argument would see the S&P 500 jamming into recent resistance around the 1,230 price level. If prices rolled over and momentum picked up, a test of the recent August lows would likely transpire and could produce a breakdown and a lower low.

When looking at recent price action, the S&P 500 Index has put in a series of higher lows which is a bullish signal, however the S&P 500 has a long road ahead to break out above the 2011 highs. If the S&P 500 carves out a lower high on the S&P 500 Index at 1,230, 1,250, or even 1,280 and subsequently takes out the August lows then the secular bear will be back. The weekly chart of the S&P 500 Index ($SPX) shown below illustrates key support levels:

For now I am just going to sit in cash and wait for Mr. Market to provide me with some better clues. The trading range is pretty wide going from around 1,100 to 1,280.”

My downside scenario played out last week, but I will be watching closely to see if the S&P 500 can push below the August lows. If the August lows are taken out, we could see support come in around the 1,085 price level. If that level breaks down then the 1,008 – 1,040 price range will be in play.

The daily chart of the S&P 500 Index is shown below with the key support levels illustrated:

In closing, last week was wild in terms of price action and volatility was nearly palpable. I am anticipating some additional volatility this coming week. Gold prices could bounce as price is sitting right at the key 50 period moving average. If gold works through the 50 period moving average additional downside will be likely.

Similar to gold, if the S&P 500 is able to push through the August lows additional sellers will step in as stops will be triggered on a breach of the S&P 1,100 price level. News flow and headline risk coming out of Europe will continue to impact price action. I would also point out to members that there is a standing chance that the U.S. government could shut down as budget issues continue to manifest within the confines of the U.S. Congress.

Risk remains extremely high.

Review my track record and join now at  Options Trading Signals.com  and receive a 66% off coupon which expires tomorrow.

What the U.S. Dollar and the Euro Mean to the S&P 500

The buzz around the blogosphere and in the media is that Quantitative Easing II is scheduled to end in around 3 weeks. Already pundits are asking about Quantitative Easing III as a matter of when, not if. In reality a QE III Lite version is already in the cards as the Federal Reserve has stated they will be buying Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) with maturing issues. The Fed also plans on reinvesting the interest earned from the existing portfolio (Roughly $15 billion/monthly).

When it comes to the application of financial principles, doing the opposite of what everyone else does generally leads to an extreme variation in the overall results. While the results are not always better, they are at the very least significantly different from what most lemmings within the group experience. In every aspect of my financial life I try to do the opposite of what the herd is doing. It takes experience and a significant level of discipline, but buying from the herd when they are selling and being willing to sell into a crowd when they are buying is a great way to trade. It sounds easy, but for most people it is not, myself included.

Right now financial markets are uncertain. I would be remiss if I did not point out the recent strength in the U.S. Dollar Index and the potential higher low that it has carved out on the daily and weekly charts. The weekly chart of the U.S. Dollar Index is shown below:

The current pattern on the U.S. Dollar Weekly chart is bullish. We could see the U.S. Dollar Index trade significantly higher from here as it has been under severe selling pressure for an extended period of time. While I believe technical analysis is just one context through which to view financial markets, it is uncanny how often market cycles and headline events line up. Is it merely a coincidence that the U.S. Dollar is potentially bottoming around the same time the Federal Reserve is ending the QE II asset purchase program?

Regardless of what camp economists are in, we presently live in a strange time for financial markets and capitalism in general. One of the more interesting charts to study is the Euro currency, which in contrast to the U.S. Dollar Index appears to have a more bearish pattern. Could it be that the U.S. Dollar is setting up to rally because of the perceived weakness of the Eurozone? The daily chart of the Euro ETF is shown below:

The Dollar may be firming up here based on the Euro’s weakness and it may have absolutely nothing to do with QE II ending. I always refer to price action and never question Mr. Market’s directional bias. If the U.S. Dollar begins to work higher what impact will it have on equities?

A stronger U.S. Dollar would certainly put pressure on risk assets, specifically equity and commodity prices. As it turns out, we are at an interesting juncture in financial markets at this point in time.

The 4 year stock market cycle is nearing an end, a presidential election will take place in less than 18 months, the U.S. government has a massive debt crisis developing, and the European debt crisis continues to mature in what will likely be a microcosm of what we will face here in the United States. The Middle East remains tense at the very least and the recent OPEC announcement to maintain supply levels has helped support oil prices.

Higher oil prices have obviously slowed down the U.S. economy as the consumer is strapped with higher costs on nearly everything, specifically food and energy. In addition, the unemployment numbers are seemingly not improving and housing appears to be rolling over . . . again.

Almost everywhere we look the news is bleak. Mr. Market has shrugged off bad news time and time again since the March 2009 lows. The long term shorts remain frustrated to say the least and those who were actively shorting along the way have likely been stopped out multiple times. Everywhere I look market commentary is bearish and pundits are talking about additional weakness as they point to a rallying Dollar and multiple economic headwinds facing domestic markets.

Traders and investors should be focused on a few specific price levels on the S&P 500. With the Dollar rallying, the S&P 500 index has remained under extreme selling pressure for multiple weeks. The S&P 500 (SPX) is likely going to test its 200 period moving average. From there I am expecting a bounce higher, although the bounce may be nothing more than a Dead Cat Bounce.

As always, time and price will be the final arbiter but if the Dollar continues to trade higher we could see the S&P 500 lose its 200 period moving average and eventually test a major support level which needs to hold up for the bulls. If the March 16, 2011 pivot lows are taken out to the downside, the next leg of the secular bear market may be under way. The daily chart of the SPX illustrated below shows the key price levels and the potential price action that may lead up to a key test of the March 2011 pivot lows:

Very rarely does the first mouse get the cheese, so I would anticipate a bounce off of the 200 period moving average which currently coincides with the March pivot lows. With not only the pivot lows but the 200 period moving average offering support a breakdown lower will be a large tell about the health and future price action of the S&P 500.

Right now I am just going to focus on how the S&P 500 handles the key support zone illustrated above. The forthcoming price action will tell traders everything we need to know about the health of financial markets. I have no idea if we are about to enter a double dip recession nor do I know whether price action will even test the March pivot lows.

What I do know is that price action in coming days around key support areas is going to be critical. I am convinced that Mr. Market will tell us whether the bullish party will continue or come to an end in the next few weeks/months. A breakdown of the March pivot lows in the future will likely initiate the launch sequence for the next secular bear market. I would keep the S&P 500 1,250 price level on the radar going forward. Risk remains high.

If you would like to receive J.W. Jones emails several times per week on SP 500, Volatility Index, Gold, and Silver intermediate direction and option trade alerts… take a look at Options Trading Signals.com today for a 24 hour 66% off coupon, and/or sign up for his occasional free updates.