Bank of England Halts Bond Purchases, Obama Supports Free Trade, where we went wrong, and more

The carnage from yesterday masked a lot of interesting news bits, some good, some bad, some just plain confusing:

• For starters, CBS Marketwatch ran a story about Bank of England Halts Bond Purchases. As central banks around the world face up to the reality that even they are not bigger than the markets, quantitative easing programs are likely to be pulled back. We’re seeing it in England, but as the PIIGS come under continued fire, they’ll also be mandated to cut back fiscal spending. Unlike the US, the PIIGS are closer to states in that they have limited leeway on deficits and printing. It might actually end up being their saving grace if they can get their PR story straight.

• On our side of the pond, President Obama made a step in the right direction by going against his party, and coming out in support of free trade. The NY Times ran the following story: White House Unveils Plan to Double U.S. Exports. While encouraging, the language did not contain the commitment that we’d prefer to see, and I’m afraid that this is all just talk.

But in announcing the new strategy, the commerce secretary, Gary Locke, did not say when the administration might send Congress three completed free-trade accords — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Many trade specialists say that is essential to prod other countries to negotiate with the United States. But the move is likely to cause a rift with Mr. Obama’s liberal supporters in the Democratic Party, as well as free-trade opponents in the Republican Party.

So we’re left holding our breath. I don’t think the Obama administration will have the political will or power to go against their base of unions and left and right wing protectionists. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see protectionist measures implemented over the course of the year.

• Obviously, Australia left it’s interest rates unchanged. Screwed the carry trade for a lot of people yesterday, but was not that surprising to us. Remember, we’re long USD vs. JPY and vs. EUO. We just believe that USD will still be the beneficiary of the unwinding of risk as must happen. We should have been like Wells Fargo, who shorting the carry trade on the yield curve, and taken more aggressive positions in long USD.

• Where we went wrong: We’ve allocated a small portion of our portfolio to a metals portfolio. We built a position in gold and maintained it. We increased our exposure by building positions in SLV, PALL, and PPLT. We got in too late and should have diversified some of our gold holdings earlier. We are down between 8-18% on the positions. While it’s painful, we continue to hold these positions. First, the individual positions are small. Second, the entire position in metals is relatively small. Third, we maintain that the reasoning behind owning exposure to physical metals continues and we’re happy about the diversification into metals other than gold. We’re not in copper at all. Additionally, today we added a small exposure to GDX as the spread between GDX and GLD seems to imply that there is more potential for outperformance in the miners than in the physical. Here’s the chart from StockCharts.com:

This is the ratio of GLD:GDX. It’s not at the hyperextended levels of Oct. 2008, when the ratio was over 4, but it still looks like the valuation of the miners is low relative to the price of gold.

• Lastly, I want to discuss Treasuries. In 1992, as Soros was breaking the Bank of England, the trade was a simple understanding that no entity nor government is stronger than the market on a long term basis. We have been getting comments and notes about how we can see a continued debt deflationary environment, with a stronger dollar, and lower Treasuries. In the 1970’s, the thinking was that inflation and growth went hand in hand. Stimulate inflation and you’ll get to full employment (sound familiar?). Instead, we had a previously unimaginable situation where we had inflation and no growth, and with it a new term: stagflation. In my mind, we can enter a period where people will want to hoard dollars and not lend it out to the government. It’s the worst possible world for the Fed, whereby they will face higher borrowing costs without stimulating any inflation since the velocity of money will go down. If fiscal policy doesn’t cut government spending, we will be in a very weak position with very few places to hide. Once spending does start, we will face the specter of inflation that will continue to put downward pressures on Treasuries, this time on the short end. We are stuck and the losers will be the holders of long-dated Treasuries. For the Treasury market to rally from here, an investor would have to believe that the Fed, Treasuries, and government can orchestrate a “soft-landing” where domestic savings rates inch up, foreigners continue to want to finance our deficits, trade balances magically and incrementally improve, etc. I’m not a big believer.

Last 5 posts by Yaron Sadan

• Deadly discount rate - March 9th, 2010
• Downsize to save Detroit? - March 9th, 2010
• Citi, banks, stress tests - I'm confused - March 9th, 2010
• Cash on the sidelines? Not as much as before. - March 9th, 2010
• India Food Inflation - March 9th, 2010

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.