Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The last 3 years have either not happened or are beginning to re-run

If you feel like its October 2008 and not October 2011, you are certainly not alone. You could have suffered comatose on October 3, 2008 and woken up three years later, today October 4, 2011, and if your nurse had Bloomberg on television, you would have likely thought that you were only out a single day. This is what you would have remembered from three years ago, and what you would have seen on Bloomberg today:

You remember, pre-comtase, on October 3, 2008 the S&P500 was at 1099, and the VIX was at 45.14

You wake up three years later, and see on October 4, 2011, that the SP is at 1095 and the VIX is at 45.45.


You could be forgiven for failing to recognize that, in fact, three years have occurred between these two nearly identical October 4th's. But since you were asleep for the March 2009 "turn-around," I'll let you know that there are some significant differences to consider this time. Let's look again at BAC, for example:

BAC, October 3, 2008: $34.48 (when you went into comatose)

BAC, March 12, 2009: $5.38 (while you were sleeping, beginning of the bull market in stocks that has since been erased for financials)

BAC, March 6, 2009: $3.14 (while you were sleeping, the depth of the crash: S&P was at 666 on this day, and DJIA was at 6626.)

BAC, today October 4, 2011: $5.39. (you wake up and say, "BAC--what happened!?")

And here are some other financials (ZH):

Morgan Stanley: $12.20, now at the December 03, 2008 level

Citigroup: $22.58, now at the March 16, 2009 level

Goldman Sachs: $88.60, now at the March 11, 2009 level

JPMorgan: $28.05, now at the April 8, 2009 level

So, in other words, these banks currently have valuations near or equal to their lowest valuations of March 2009, when the overall market was at its own lowest. However, this time, they have these same lowest valuations when the overall market is much higher (1095 S&P and 10,599 DJIA) relative to the low, and when volatility is creeping back into the 40's. If the banks are leading indicators (like the yield curve), then we are in for another ride.

Notably distinct: Wells Fargo dipped to $8.61 on March 6, 2009, but sits today at $23.06; however, shares are down about 30% from earlier in the year (over $33/share).

Of course, there is another thing to remember that has occurred since your coma in October 2008. You might be able to tell, given that unemployment is higher, the markets are the same levels, and there is still a financial crisis, but while you were sleeping, the US government did manage to throw a few Trillion dollars at the mess, only to have no effect at all! So everything else might be the same or lower, but rest assured the next time you go into a coma, the national debt is waaaaay higher!

National debt, Sept 30, 2008: $10,186,269,007,199.11

National debt, Sept 30, 2011: $14,837,099,271,196.71

Difference: $4,650,830,263,997.60

Percent: 45.7% increase in three years.

Five days now: Bank of America site overwhelmed and down again/still

I just checked BoA at 9:50am Mountain Time, and was greeted with the same message I received about an hour ago:

This is now about the fifth straight day of BAC's failure to communicate. ZeroHedge has been covering this embarrassment/customer-affront for the past few days. If you look at that link, you'll see that BAC has managed to change the text on the "overwhelmed" page, but still hasn't been able to get its own homepage up.

But, seriously, man---everything is totally fine at Bank of America. Really, seriously, I mean, don't even worry about it....

Yes, indeed. About a month ago, BAC announced 30,000 layoffs; the company has over 200,000 employees. Interestingly and strikingly, this is more layoffs than all but seven other massive US banks (JPM, Wells, etc) have in total employees (Bloomberg). BAC shares are now at under $5.50, which puts them right about where they were . . . in March 2009.

But everything is totally fine, man. Seriously.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Cage Fight Tonight: USD/EUR v. Au/Ag, Round 1!

Ding, ding, ding! Round 1 in the latest USD/EUR versus Au/Ag (that's Gold/Silver) is underway! Its Fiat Money versus Hard Money, Paper versus Physical, Fantasy World versus Real World...and it is on, baby! Bookies on the back row!

Gold and Silver are, of course, looking nice and shiny tonight: though over 100 years old now, that 1912 St Gaudens is $2o Piece is just as austere a fighter as ever. Look at that footwork! And likewise, that tiny little 1964 Roosevelt dime will not only still buy you a gallon of gas, but he's looking pretty trim in that silk hoodie! Silver, of course, is still recovering from that black-eye suffered during last Friday's COMEX beat-down (apparently its hard for even cage-fighters to battle while handcuffed), and Gold has a sprained ankle after a noticeable slip that same day. And across the cage, EUR and USD are looking....well, hold on....

EUR and USD are...they are looking....let's see....wait a second, I don't see them....standby for second here...

Where are USD and EUR? Hey, has anyone seen EUR and USD? Oh wait, no, of course no one has seen them, I almost forgot---THEY DON'T EXIST!

Some cage-fight this is going to be: Gold and Silver are standing there in hooded silk robes, and EUR and USD don't even exist. This totally sucks!

Alright, now let's get down to business. What is going on with the fiat-paper watching USDX and real-world commodities?

There's a saying that "Dr Copper is the only commodity with a PhD in economics." Goldbugs dispute this, but the idea is that moves in spot copper prices are leading indicators for the overall macroeconomic outlook, particularly in reference to an economy heading into or out of a recession. You might remember that copper was over $4/lb back in that hectic "Commodities Summer" of 2008, when platinum was over $2,000/oz (and up to $2,200/oz) and oil was $148/barrel. Within months and before the end of 2008, platinum was under $800/oz and oil was under $30/barrel. Just before the downward moves in these commodities (PM's and energy), copper was coming off its summer high, and coming off in the hurry: copper went from over $4/lb to under $1.50/lb before finally starting back up with everything else in March 2009.

Copper returned to and smashed through the '08 high in November 2010, and spent most of this year above $4/lb, and even above $4.50/lb, setting record high after record high....until a couple of weeks ago. This week copper slid under $3/lb briefly, and like silver, is off 25% since the beginning of September. Ouch.

Personally, I'm skeptical of Dr Copper's recession-predicting abilities: I think of the commodities markets more like proxies for domestic and international bank trading desk activity and profit-seeking than as indicators for recession. But that said, bank activity in the commodities markets is so intense and so large scale that decision by banks to pull back here or there will absolutely manifest much more dramatically in the commodities markets than in bonds and equities, where their presence is likewise certainly massive, but less so by percentage. Also, the individual commodities markets are quite small compared to Treasuries, bonds, or stocks, and included few investor classes and fewer investors, period.

To put it in perspective, Apple (AAPL) daily volume averages around 24 million shares exchanged. With the current price at $380 or so, that's a daily priced-volume of $9.12 Billion. Now, how many people do you know who own Apple shares? How many funds? How many private equity groups?

Or let me put it this way---do you know any of these classes of investors who don't own Apple shares? Do you know of any pension funds that don't own AAPL today? "Everybody owns Apple!" (Disclosure: not me--I own no stocks)

Now, let's look at my personal favorite bi-polar money/commodity--silver! I say that silver is bi-polar ever so lovingly, because silver is a money metal controlled by commodities traders. Gold, I think, has broken free of the "commodity" label that it should have never had, and perhaps silver will one day as well (after all, it was so for thousands of years, and all the way up to 1964 in this country). For now, silver is considered by most a "commodity."

According to the LBMA (and believe them or not, its up to you), silver is averaging about $6.07 Billion daily priced-volume, or 2/3 of what AAPL does in a day. So--how many people do you know who own silver? How many pension funds own silver (hint: none! its against their charters to be in "commodities futures")? How many private equity funds are heavy on the white metal? And again, how many people do you know with any silver at all--even silverware?

Any one?

You're lucky if you have friends who own silver, because you've found a friend of a very small minority, as most people simply don't, most institutions simply don't, and honestly most people think you're at least a little "strange" if you do own anything like silver---or, heaven forbid, gold("OMG! That's so barbaric!"). The massive players in this much smaller-than-Apple-shares silver market are---guess who?

Yes....the banks.

And I'm not just talking about the concentrated shorts, but the "buyers" are banks as well. And it is not just silver, but all other commodities (in fact, corn might be the most banksterified commodity lately). When you consider that the 30-yr is yielding under 3% right now, it cannot be surprising. How does a bank lend money for 30 years at a negative real rate and make money? Hint: you can't make money when you're lending at a negative real rate: and it is a negative real rate, because even according to the Federal Reserve, 30-yr inflation expectations are over 3%. Banks are chasing whatever they can, and commodities offer big returns, even if it is with big risk. I would argue (and do here) that it is the same risk banks are taking in buying up Treasuries at record high prices---but at least commodities don't have a pre-set par value; since commodities are prices in USD, they can theoretically go up in price to no limit. Banks that trade on trends (which would be most banks) aren't stupid, and they see what commodities offer these days, and they get in. Furthermore, its a dollar hedge for anyone sitting on all that USD: USD up, commodities down; USD down, commodities up (or at least they assume).

Hence my skepticism of Dr Copper: I don't even think the commodities markets are real indicators of commodities use (unfortunately). If the US required delivery, this would obviously change, because then banksters (who have never even seen a physical contract of copper, let alone the inside of a Freeport McMoran facility or anything else real about the commodities they "buy") would flee from commodities like the plague---or at least like they did before the 1999 regulation changes, and before Helicopter Ben's money drops. So, if banks are the big players in the commodities markets, to whom should we look first when we see massive commodities sell-offs like we have for the past two weeks?

I'm looking at the banks. But why are the banks selling off positions in commodities?

A.) Because they need capital to cover for losses elsewhere...like in the Euro bonds market.

B.) Because they are bidding up on margin chasing any gains they can get in this ZIRP world, and the Exchanges are hiking margin requirements because of A and C.

C.) Because the European financial meltdown is clearly demonstrating that counterparty risk never really was "fixed" nor "solved" nor in any way made to "go away," and using counter-party "backed" OPM to bet on something as volatile as commodities is suddenly not seemingly like such a good idea.

D.) A, B, C

D.) all of the above.

Let's go to hard money and commodities for the answers/proof, per usual. The biggest story this month for the hard money crowd is the routing of commodities last week, especially silver and gold. Silver took a major hit last Friday (Sept 23) in particular, getting slammed 30%. That's hard to watch even after surviving the beat-down offered the first week of this May (also painful). The usual suspects started with the "bubble"-speak, and Infowars featured a rather financially imaginative reporter who was utterly perplexed at why people would ever even doubt the dollar, when gold is "back by nothing" and the dollar---you remember, that invisible thing that didn't even show up for the cage-fight--is "backed by the government."

Oh, brother.

Indeed, if you were a clueless reporter, or very financially adept infant who happened to have been that born this past Monday last, September 19, you surely would have immediately started watching Bloomberg Surviellence Midday right away, in lieu of Sponge Bob. By Friday the 23rd, you very well might have been convinced in your cute little less-than-one-week-old mind that given

1.) the week's smashing of commodities,

2.) the week's rally in Treasuries, and

3.) the week's move in USD,

perhaps the dollar is the investment of your lifetime!

And, and like many one-week-old babies who offer financial advice, you would have been just a little premature in your analysis, though strikingly consistent with what nearly every "financial analyst" on MSNBC would themselves suggest. "Buy dollars! They're backed by the government! The US can't default---we have printing presses!"

For those of us who aren't one-week old, let's put the last two weeks in perspective. Nevermind the proper perspective, which reaches back to 1971 for gold and 1964 for silver, when gold was $35/oz and silver was $1.25/oz; no, we'll surely be chastised that "oh, but it was different back then," so we can't possibly do that! So, we'll acquiesce, and just go back 12 months for a little perspective. Was it that different 12 months ago? Hmmm....

You might not remember it, but here is what was happening 12 months ago, and what's happening today:

Silver spot per oz, October 1, 2010: $21.98.

Silver spot per oz, October 1, 2011: $29.98.

Gold spot per oz, October 1, 2010: $1315.

Gold spot per oz, October 1, 2011: $1620.

In other words, silver is up $8.00/oz, or 36.4% since this time last year. Gold is up $305/oz, or 23.2% since this time last year. Now, since the economy is just stellar and everything is great and has been totally repaired (what, you didn't notice?) over these past 12 months, how about USDX?

USDX, October 1, 2010: 78.47

USDX, October 1, 2011: 78.55

Or, courtesy a Bloomberg USDX screen-shot:

And what you're looking at is pretty important.

Now, let's blend this information. USDX is almost exactly were it was 12 months ago, with a negligible 1/1o of 1% change (and please note USDX can swing 10 times that intraday!). If USDX is accurately reflecting the dollar's ability to trade for hard money, then the gold and silver prices in USD should be just 1/10 of 1% higher today than they were 1 year ago.

But, wait---we have the data above: gold is 23.2% higher and silver is 36.4% higher. What is going on here?

That USDX chart is like a roller-coaster: a lot of up and down, but you end up where you start. If commodities (or anything else) were tethered to the USD, then they too should be just about where they were at this USDX level. But they aren't. Now, let's look at equities:

DJIA, October 2010: 10,944

DJIA, October 2011: 10,913

S&P 500, October 2010: 1146

S&P 500, October 2011: 1136

According to USDX, the DJIA, and the S&P500, its almost as if this last year hasn't even happened! This is almost like market time travel! And what's more, you can see that the price changes in equities are following (tethered to?) the USDX while the price changes in gold and silver are not. Commodities and the USDX are supposed to weight opposite sides of the see-saw: one goes up, the other goes down. But now we have 12 months of data that shows when one goes up (USDX), the other isn't coming back down all the way. The direct 1:1 inverse relationship is breaking down, and it is breaking down against the USDX, and against USD.

Let's look at the USDX more closely. USDX is a composite index that values USD's purchasing power against the six other major currencies. Also, it is weighted, and weighted heaviest to euro. Here are the pieces of the USDX pie:

Euro (EUR): 58.6%
Japanese Yen (JPY): 12.6%
Pound sterling (GBP): 11.9%
Canadian dollar (CAD): 9.1%
Swedish krona (SEK): 4.2%
Swiss franc (CHF): 3.6%

Graphically, this pie looks like so:

Its a good thing for USD that CHF (aka Swissie) is weight at just 3.6%, because Swissie has been on a tear this year, breaking all kinds of records and raising to the highest USD price ever. The real weight in USDX, as you can see, is EUR, and unlike Swissie, EUR wasn't been doing to well at all this year. Yes, apparently the whole "oh my goodness, the entire EU is going broke without Germany" thing isn't too good for one's currency. When USD gains purchasing power on EUR, the USDX increases numerically, which leads to a decrease in USD commodities prices. Conversely, when EUR gains on USD, EUR gets more costly, USD losses value, and commodities priced in USD cost more USD, so the price goes up. Check out this 1-yr USD-EUR chart in combination with the 1-yr silver directly below it:

They are quite similar, as the peaks in EUR value are reflected in price (the $1.48 early May EUR high) on the USD-EUR part, and these correspond to USD weakness, which, again, is reflected in commodities as a higher price. But what's not similar are the ends of either: EUR-USD is nearly unchanged over the year (despite the roller coaster in the middle), from $1.33 last year to $1.36 this year, but silver--again--is up over 36%. That is quite a difference! This doesn't seem to fit the "dollar up, commodities down" in that 1:1 inverse relationship everyone has assumed for quite some time. For silver at least, that 1:1 has eroded to 1:0.64 or so.

I could very well be totally premature on this: perhaps next week USDX will push back and smash commodities again. But USDX has had two weeks of nothing up good press, jittery commodities traders, and margin hikes in its favor, and it hasn't been able to clean up that 36% silver spread, nor the 23% gold spread. Surely we are in for yet another crazy week.

This feels like mid August 2008.

Update: Bankster Report MIA for almost a year, and the economy is even worse than when I left!

My apologies for the long hiatus, but I had a very good reason for my absence (and no, it involved neither jail time nor time hiking in Iran). Though all markets---equities, bonds, commodities---have been quite crazy over this past year, in many respects I don't feel like I've missed much in reporting: after all, it is the same 3-year old story (dating back to 2008 now) of heretofore unprecedented volatility and constant rushes to or from "risk on" to or from "safe-heaven." Its like watching looters empty a burning building: as the flames intensify, the looters frenzy even more frantically to take whatever is left before it is too late. People are risking everything for such little gain.

Case in point, the perennially perplexing (to me, anyway) Treasury rally! Last week, the 2-year Treasury hit another all-time record low yield, paying just 0.1451%. Think about that for a minute: this incredibly low yield means that institutions are willing to give the US government, for example, a 2-year $1,000,000 loan in exchange for measly $1,451 total profit (assuming that in two years they even get the principle back!). And, that assumes no CDS coverage: if the CDS rate on 2-yr's is just a ten basis points (and I do not know what it is currently), that profit is reduced to $451. This, mind you, is considered a "rush to safety"---risking a million for less than a grand's total maximum profit!

But, many institutional investors don't hold US paper (even short 2-yr paper) to maturity: instead, they sell it again on the secondary market. If rates do not decrease within the next two years, these investors lose money: they will not be able to sell the paper for more than they paid. Massive amounts of capital from all over the globe are going into Treasuries right now as Treasuries are at record high prices. Much of this capital is bank balance sheet capital, including a rush out of euro over to USD (via the Fed's never-ending eurodollar scheme) by the European banks. What happens to the value of these massive UST holdings on bank balance sheets when UST comes off the highs?

Seriously---how much lower can the 2-yr go than 0.1451%?

Well, it can go 0.1451% lower!

In other words, the highest possible gain for these investors in UST is par value, and they are only 0.1451% below par value when they buy! But the total possible losses are full par value negative, as they could get nothing back if the US defaults in two years (*more on this later). At least when you buy a stock at an all time high, there is the chance it can go higher, and higher, and higher---theoretically, indefinitely. But bonds are the opposite: par value is a value cap. Who is going to buy dollar in the form of UST at more than face value when anyone can always buy dollars themselves at face value---in the form of regular cash?! A cash note is UST at face value: why on Earth would an investor pay $1.01, or over par value, for 2-yr Treasury when he can get a mature $1 note (read: cash) for par value? In the latter case, of course, he's not making any money, but that still beats the first case, where he's guaranteed to lose money. Of course, we actually did see negative 3-week rates back in December 2008, and that was caused by the (justified) total lack of confidence in counterparties and cash "shortage"; banks were willing to take that 0.001% haircut if it came with that government guarantee. But guess what else they also took as par value collateral at that time? They took CASH.

And they took cash because the other "collateral" they had (RMBS, CMBS, generally BS paper!) was suddenly both compromised (due to the market collapse) and uninsured (but to the counterparty/AIG collapse). Basically, what we saw here in the US from around August 2008 to January 2009 is what Europe is seeing right now. However, there are some significant differences, as well, perhaps the most important of which is the difference in nature of the euro versus that of the dollar.

As per my title, the national and "global" (read: European) economies are in even worse shape than they were at the time of last post in November 2010, and I will prove it (as if you need me to)---but later tonight with another post, currently titled Cage Fight Announced: USD/EUR v. Au/Ag, Round 1! This is an exciting time for the hard money crew: it doesn't get better than this!

I'm glad to be back, and check in later... :)

Friday, November 19, 2010

New candidate for Understatement of the Year: "National and global interests are trumping local concerns."

I don't have much commentary on this video, other than to say that it is all too common and ever-increasing.  If you think you're having a bad day, put yourself in the shoes of these people:

"Andes villagers resist China's claim on $50 Billion mine"

But then, of course, you might actually be one of Peruvians in the film (as unlikely as it is), or, I mean, pero, por supuesto, es posible que usted puede ser una de las personas pobres en este vídeo, y si ese es el caso, por favor, mira este vídeo, y sentirse mejor de tu condición:

Corrupt Zambian socialist government enables corrupt Chinese "state-capitalistic" socialist investors

So, in other words, corrupt anti-human rights, socialist, state-run mines are being replaced by foreign corrupt anti-human rights, socialist state-run mines.  Wow, that's progress: the people have been elevated from "disposable" to "replaceable."  

Fifty-pence a day to get blown up.  

Monday, November 15, 2010

Yeah, banksters own your parking spaces, thanks to your corrupt spendthrift city officials. What's it to you?!

Many Chicagoans still remember with bitter discontent the outrageous deal that Chicago mayor Daley forced on the city in December 2008 which transferred control of 36,000 of the city's parking meters and public parking spaces to Morgan Stanley.  The deal was sold to the equally irresponsibly Chicago city council as an absolutely must-do emergency parachute that could only be considered for mere three days, and that would save the day by generating $1.16 Billion, which the city, of course, desperately need to waste on more programs on which Chicago habitually wastes hundreds of millions of dollars.  Of course, it is history now, but the deal was approved.  Here's what was said at the time:

"...we're taking steps that no other city or state is taking to cushion our taxpayers from the bad economy and keep our city moving forward," (mayor) Daley said."

"I think it's a fair price" for the parking meter system, said Dana Levenson, head of North American infrastructure banking for Royal Bank of Scotland, who helped negotiate the parking lot lease in his former position with the city.

Now, interestingly, at the time Morgan Stanley was freshly minted a "bank holding company" for the first in its entire history as an investment bank.  If you'll remember, this is was a magical statutus granted to several investment banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley) and even credit card companies (Captiol One, American Express) which was the sole discretion of the Federal Reserve, and which then allowed these non-bank companies to receive billions in TARP funding--TARP funding which Congress had authorized for banks only.  So, Paulson and Geithner and Bernanke just made everyone a bank!   Morgan Stanley received $10 Billion, and without the money, the irresponsible, toxic MBS-ladden firm would have met the bankruptcy it so honestly deserved within weeks of the bailout.   But, of course, this is sadly true of several other fantastically irresponsible banks (Wells Fargo, BoA, JPMorgan Chase, GS) which were likewise saved by head bankster Hank Paulson and his cohorts at the FRBNY and FRS, Mr Geithner and Mr Bernanke.   Still, it is worth remembering...

So, fast-forward to today, almost two years later.  It appears the city finally got around to reading the contract.

According to a Bloomberg report today, the "fair price" and "good deal" mayor Daley had assured Chicago of regarding the massive 75-year transfer of parking spaces to Morgan Stanley is, indeed, a very "fair price" and "good deal," but not for Chicago.  What, then, is the price tag on how much the deal will cost Chicago drivers, and how much revenue has the city itself surrendered to the bank of Morgan Stanley?

$1 Billion, $2 Billion?

Try $11.6 Billion.

That's right--a 10:1 ratio of costs to benefits.  Of course, this is only assuming that Morgan Stanley stays within a standard deviation or so of the normal parking space prices, which is no guarantee, as the city even surrendered to the bank any review or input on the price increases the bank imposes!  Morgan Stanley may very well make twice this estimate, as they have no apprehension, and no legal restriction, for jacking parking prices sky-high.  Chicagoans saw this first hand, as within weeks of the transfer, Morgan Stanley increased the parking rates by 400%!  So, as there are no contractual limits on what Morgan Stanley can charge for the 36,000 spaces it now controls for another 73 years, this $11.6 Billion number is likely a very low-ball estimate.  

Furthermore, the profits are a cake-walk: the Daley deal has granted Morgan Stanley an amazing minimum estimated return of 80 cents for every dollar paid for parking: compared to other contracts in the city, such as at the airport, the average revenue is below 5 cents on the dollar.  In other words, for every $1 a Chicagoan is paying for parking, 80 cents are returned to Morgan Stanley in pure profit.  When reviewed from the City's perspective, this means that Daley and the City could have sold the contract to Morgan Stanley for more than ten times as much as the original $1.16 Billion tag and still kept within the norm for private leases of public property within the city; or, to put in term that Chicago gangster-banksters might understand better, Daley and the City left over $9 Billion on the table, and let Morgan Stanley lapped it up. 

Now also please remember (as no truck driver can forget, given in huge increase in tolls since) that in 2004 the City and this same mayor Daley likewise leased out the Chicago Skyway for 99 years to a Spanish  company, the private-equity infrastructure consortium known as Cinta.  This is the same Cinta company that is so heavily involved in the "non-existent" North American corridor project.  The practice of leasing toll roads has become too common in these days spendthrift cities and states, and as evidenced in Pennsylvania, some governors are even trying to transform non-toll roads  into toll roads for the express purpose of then leasing the roads to banks  and investment groups!   

But getting back to the issue of parking spaces, the Bloomberg story breaks today because of the fact that two other major cities--Indianapolis and Pittsburgh--are both themselves in the process of negotiating deals.  Pittsburgh needs the money to meet its ballooning pension obligations, and recently rejected a deal with yet another corrupt bank that is a plague on the American taxpayer and the entire world, JP Morgan Chase.  Conversely, Indianapolis is not in as urgent need of cash-flow as Pittsburgh, but this city too is negotiating a deal with Xerox subsidary, Affiliated Computer Services for control and updating of the city's parking meters.

The vote in Indianapolis is tonight.  Charges of cronyism have been flying for some time, as the mayor's office, the city council president, and Xerox seem a little too close for comfort:

"ACS is a powerful player in government contracting and already plays a role in Indiana's welfare-services modernization. And the mayor's office and ACS have shared a lobbyist at Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg. Council President Ryan Vaughn works at the firm as an associate but does not perform any work for ACS, he says.

Such connections make some critics uncomfortable, even if ACS, the law firm and the mayor's staff insist that the lobbyist, Joe Loftus, didn't participate in parking-meter negotiations.

(City Council president) Vaughn, who has faced pressure to recuse himself, plans to vote in favor because he views the deal as important for his Broad Ripple district.

He acknowledges an appearance of a conflict of interest.

"But it's one that I've gone to great lengths to explain," he said.

He doesn't view his firm's association with ACS as violating the council's ethics rules. Those require recusal if a council member or a business in which he or she has an interest would directly benefit by more than $1,000."

At the least Indianapolis is deal is not a billion-dollar commitment.  Still, it is not a direly-needed project, either.  Cities need to much more carefully consider these "partnerships" before they go selling off their public property for decades at a time.  There is a long line of banksters who are just dying for the chance to get hold of infrastructure, and Morgan Stanley's Chicago strategy is their model.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Gold-Silver Ratio breaks 1:50 level as things get interesting

Back when the US had a gold and silver standard, the dollar was pegged to gold, but silver was also pegged to gold.  This gold-silver ratio was held rather steady at about 1:15, meaning that one ounce of gold would buy the holder about 15 ounces of silver, or vice-versa.  

This gold-silver pegging was reflected in the dollar right up through 1933: before the illegalization of private gold ownership thanks to a conspiracy between the Federal Reserve, Congress, and FDR in 1933, it was a given in US commerce that twenty $1 silver coins were interchangeable for one $20 gold piece, which contained just under 1 oz of gold.  As US dollar coins were minted with 0.7734 oz of silver in each, this maintained the ratio of almost exactly 1:15.5.  Let's check this out visually:  

The Gold Confiscation Act of 1933, of course, threw everything you see above out the window.  Not only were you not going to get gold coins for your silver coins, as it was now magically illegal for the meeeeeasly American citizens to own gold coin, but you certainly were not going to get an ounce for $20: nope, even assuming you'd like to break the law to get your hands on some, you'll have to pay a whooping 75% more than you ever had--a nice $35 for an ounce.  Instantly, with the stroke of FDR's pen authorizing the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and the revaluation of gold to $35 US dollars per ounce, the 160-year-old American standard of a 1:15 gold-silver ratio that had been a feature of the US dollar since the beginning of the Republic, was gone.  Just that quickly, the ratio had moved to nearly 1:27, or a matching increase of 75%.  Now, assuming you could get the Gaudens (which you could only do on the black market if you could do it at all, and which would have been subject to immediate confiscation if any federale found out that you had it), you couldn't bring home the Gaudens for 20 Peace dollars, but rather, you had better bring 35.  Or, to compare:

Not to mention, you had to deal with gangsters!   Yikes! (Is that one in the middle Obama?)

Of course, as covered in other posts, eventually the dollar was totally detached from silver by 1964, and has become so worthless that 29 years ago in 1981, it was even detached from copper! So, I supposed right now we are on a "nickel and zinc standard," but we have already lost the "nickel standard" part, as the coins we call "nickels" are 75% copper and cost more than 5 cents to make.  Or actually, to express the phenomenon more properly, our dollar is so devalued that it cannot buy a nickel for a nickel.  As for zinc--zinc is currently at $1.10/lb, and is up over 100% on the year, so soon we won't even be able to afford to make pennies, as those coins are 95% zinc.  This is the effect of fiat money--it is designed to made worth less and less!

So, getting back to the gold-silver ratio, where do we stand today?  The average since 1971, when the dollar was divorced from gold, has been around 1:55 to 1:60, with a dip to below 20 (during the Hunt brother's silver scheme) to a peak of 1:100 about twenty years ago in 1991.  What is interesting about the first--the dip below 1:20 that occurred during the Hunt brothers silver spike--is that even at its lowest, the ratio did not reach the pre-1933 standard of 1:15.  Even at its lowest, the ratio was 25% higher than the average for the entire period of American history (and indeed, world history) prior to 1933.  

As for the peak at 1:100, I'm rather quite enjoying this visualization thing, so here is that distortion in Peace dollar terms.  Using Peace dollar terms, this was just under 130 Peace dollars for one Gaudens, which looks like this: 

And it would have been a steal of a deal...in the reverse!  Those who exchanged that Gaudens for 100 ounces of silver in 1990 would have done better than those who didn't.  At the time, gold hit a multi-year peak of just over $420/oz, while silver staggered down to $4.2o/oz.  Assuming that someone had just wanted to trade-and-hold, a silverbug who traded an ounce of gold for 100 oz of silver would be looking at a 566% return on the silver.  Conversely, the other guy who took the gold over the silver would have a still impressive, but much smaller, 238% return, based on last weeks average prices of $1420/oz gold and $28/oz silver.  

It is a strategy of some metals investors to trade gold for silver and silver for gold based on the gold-silver ratio.  The interesting event that has occurred recently with this rally in gold and silver is that silver has convincingly broke through the 1:60 mark and, as of last week, the 1:50 mark.  Not too long ago, in early 2009, major weakness in silver was percieved due to the 1:82 level, but that was obviously short-lived.  But as I write this on Sunday night, with Asian trading now open and gold at $1,372/oz and silver at $26.37, the ratio tonight is back over 1:50, up to 1:52.  Or, 1:67.5 Peace dollars worth of silver...

One last thing to remember the with gold-silver ratio.  When the spread increases, that is, when the number gets bigger (as the gold side is always just "1"), you are seeing a greater move in gold  relative to silver; or in other words, gold strength.  Conversely, when the spread narrows (when the number decreases), you are seeing a stronger move in silver; that is, silver strength.  Many have speculated as gold increases in price, silver will appear "cheaper" simply because it won't have so many zero's behind it.  If this does indeed occur and investors move into silver as a result, the gold-silver ratio will obviously reflect this, and the spread will tighten.  Given the long term history of a centuries-old 1:15 ratio, silver looks cheap right now.  But given the average since 1971, silver actually looks a little overbought right now.  And no, I have not overlooked the massive SLV ETF move last week--the record-breaking silver ETF that added 352 tonnes overnight--as this obviously was a factor in breaking the 1:50 level, and came on the heals of a $2 price dip.  At that time last week, when silver hit a high of over $29 just before the COMEX rule change, the ratio dipped to a nearly unheard-of 1:48 mark, and was followed up by a massive support move that held the $27 level.

So, we shall see where we go from here.  Don't forget about the dollar in all of this: USD is knocking again on its all-time lows as per USDX.  Nothing comes for free: your silver and gold are getting more valuable because your US dollars are getting more worthless.  Just like the Chinese curse, we live in exciting times, indeed.  And I haven't even mentioned what Mr Zoellick at the World Bank said last week...

(Note: Please understand that my use of Peace dollars is for historical perspective only, as they really used to be exchangeable for Gaudens.  In today's market, you would want to use bullion for this, as that is what the ratio is based on.  Peace dollars have a slight rarity value that carries their average price higher than spot, and they are also more expensive than regular junk silver.  Likewise, a Gaudens is a limited-production coin, and many are numimastic and thus carry a premium as well.  My calculation with the number of Peace dollars relative to a Gauden are, as I mentioned above, based on the 0.77 oz silver per coin recognized content, and pretending that we still have an exchange system like what we did in 1933.)

Saturday, November 13, 2010

"No. We don't do mortgages in my country...I don't have any idea about mortgages when I started here."

We cannot thank the diggers at Zero Hedge enough for their incessant coverage of the biggest-crisis-that-no-one-is-talking about, ForeclosureGate.  Well, perhaps I shouldn't say no one's talking about, because the robosigners certainly are.

Check this out from Zero Hedge:  "The Nine Most 'Inconvient' Robosigning Admission BOA Would Love to Disappear."  You don't have to struggle through the long embedded videos of taped depositions from some of the MERS robosigners--just read the choice parts below each.  Here are my favorities:

"Do you know specifically what you're authorized to do for MERS?"
"Just sign the documents."
"Do you know specifically what you're authorized to do for City Residential Lending?"
"Just sign the documents."

"Why did you sign this document indicating that your address was in California if that in fact was not your address?"
"Because my name was on the document."
"So it was presented to you to sign and you signed it."

"In addition to notarizing assignments of mortgage, do you ever sign assignments as a vice president of a company?"
"For which companies have you signed as vice president?"
"I couldn't list all."
"Could you give me some examples?"
"Chase Morgan. Wells Fargo. I'm on pretty much every corporate resolution."
"Would it be accurate to say that there are maybe an excess of 20 companies or banks that you sign as vice president?"
"That would be fair to say."

"What did you study [in the one year of college]?"
"Nothin'. It was just the basic."
"General courses?"
"Do you have any other additional training or education in banking or finance?"
"Real estate?"

"When you say 'financial' are you referring to matters relating to banking?"
"No. We don't do mortgages in my country. ... I don't have any idea about mortgages when I started here."

This is what our banking system is based on--fraud, fraud, and fraud, and fraudulent documents!  We have no idea who "owns" what!  We have a group of banks who are admittedly involved in a conspiracy to fabricate official court documents and financial records, a group of banks funding a front company, MERS, that is specifically designed to circumvent the law, but don't worry, the recession is over, and everything is fine!  

The only thing more outrageous about this scandal than the acts of the banks are the acts of the so-called "watchdogs" --the media and government--in ignoring and papering-over this fantastically illegal behavior.  At least we have Zero Hedge, and hopefully some relentless lawyers who will no compromise with these fraudsters!  It remains to be seen whether or not the newly-elected AG's replacing some of the AG's involved in the 50-state probe will continue to persue the criminal enterprise known as MERS.