CHINA - Beginning to Panic!

China Easing to Combat The 'Darkest Period' of 2015 04-20-15 By�EconMatters

PBOC Easing

China is now firmly in stimulus mode when PBOC announced on Sunday to cut the reserve-requirement ratio by 1% to 18.5% effective April 20. �This is the second reduction this year and the largest since November 2008 during the global financial crisis. The reserve-requirement ratio represents the minimum fraction of customer deposits and notes that each commercial bank must hold as�reserves�in cash.

The new 18.5% ratio required by China is still higher than the typical global standard and than�the current 10% cap by the U.S. Federal Reserve. �The PBOC also announced an additional 100 bps cut for rural credit cooperatives and village banks, as well as a 200 basis point cut for the China Agricultural Development Bank.

�

1Q15 The 'Darkest Period'

Bloomberg�quoted�Larry Hu, head of China economics at Macquarie in Hong Kong call 1Q15 the “darkest period” this year for China's economy. �GDP was 7% in Q1, the slowest since 2009, while industrial production in March rose at the slowest rate since November 2008, and inflation turned negative for the first time since 2009. (Read:�Bloomberg Analyst Returned From China 'Terrified for the Economy')

Hu now expects further easing with an interest-rate cut within a month (PBOC has already cut interest rates twice since November), increasing infrastructure spending and a relaxation of home-purchasing rules.

My contacts in China and Hong Kong indicated that the new crackdown by Xi on corruption and state largess has put a fairly large portion of the nation's businesses (in mainland and Hong Kong) once catering to the 'elite' rich class in China out of commission. This is one of the major contributing factors to the nation's slowing growth.

$100 Billion Liqudity
WSJ estimated�that the reduction in bank reserve-requirement-ratio could freed up more than $100 billion for China's banks to lend. �This suggests increasing liquidity compounding the social economic issue of wealth gap (which should be Beijing's primary concern), similar to the 3 QE programs by the U.S. Fed.

CHINA - Skewed Heavily To The Downside," BNP Says

Chinese Economic Outlook "Skewed Heavily To The Downside," BNP Says 04-20-15 BNP via ZH

Over the past several months we’ve built on several narratives out of China certainly not the least of which is the idea that economic growth in the country is decelerating quickly at a time when accelerating capital outflows make devaluation an unpalatable (if inevitable) proposition. Signs of a dramatic slowdown were on full display earlier this month when GDP growth�slipped to 7%, the slowest pace in six years, while key indicators such as rail freight volume have fallen completely off a cliff:

With the country’s tough transition to a service-based economy being made all the more difficult by the hit industrial production will likely take as Beijing ramps up efforts to fight a pollution problem that was thrust back into the spotlight early last month thanks to a viral documentary, it’s reasonable to suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of the idle cranes, empty construction sites, and half-finished abandoned buildings that greeted Bloomberg metals analyst Kenneth Hoffman�who returned from a tour�of the country earlier this month. Ultimately, Hoffman’s assessment was that metals demand in China is collapsing and isn’t likely to pick back up for the foreseeable future.�

This is bad news for the Chinese economic machine and it’s also bad news for any iron ore miner out there whose marginal costs aren’t low enough to stay profitable in the face of a protracted downturn in prices because if you�can’t convince the big guys�that your price collusion idea will pass regulatory muster, well, they’ll likely take the opportunity to keep right on producing despite the slump and run you out of business. With the stage thus set, we bring you the following from BNP who explains why iron ore prices aren’t likely to rebound any time soon, and why the economic outlook for China is indeed “as bad as the data looks, if not worse” (to quote Mr. Hoffman).

Via BNP:

Global commodity prices have fallen sharply since last summer, dragged down by a cocktail of fading Chinese industrial demand, surging supply and a strong USD. Oil has inevitably garnered the majority of headlines but iron ore prices have fallen even further. Iron ore prices have collapsed by close to 50% since last July and over 65% since the beginning of 2014. Falls have accelerated in recent weeks, almost becoming a rout, with prices down over 30% year-to-date.�

The analogue of China’s unprecedented construction bonanza has been extraordinary levels of both cement and steel production and consumption.�We have documented the epic nature of the former with China incredibly producing more than twice as much cement in the last five years than the United States managed in the previous century�(China: Cementing The Bear Case).

The increases in China’s steel production and consumption post-GFC have been almost as, but inevitably not quite, so spectacular. Since the end of 2007, China’s steel production has leapt by over 300 million tonnes while production in the rest of the world has slightly slipped. As will be discussed below, China’s steel production has started to flatten out over the last 12-15 months but, at around 810 million tons over the last year, China’s steel production has now accounted for 50% of total global production..

The surge in Chinese steel production has inevitably required a counterpart in much higher rates of global iron ore production. China’s own, typically low grade iron ore production, has not been able to keep pace with demand growth, meaning huge increases in demand for iron ore from the rest of the world.�This demand has been fed largely by huge increases in Australian supply and, to a lesser extent, Brazil...

The collapse in iron ore prices over the last 15 months or so reflects the interplay of a levelling off in Chinese demand in 2014 for the first time since the GFC and, given the inevitably long lags between investment decision and output, continued strong gains in global supply.�Our calculations suggest that China’s apparent steel use grew by less than 3% in 2014; slower than even 2008’s 4% growth�(Chart 5). The latest industrial production data suggest that downward pressure has intensified in the final months of 2014 and early 2015 with crude steel production down -1.5% y/y on average in January and February.�

On the supply side, optimistic assumptions over the potential for Chinese steel demand growth to continue strongly for the rest of the decade has led to steady increases in productive capacity which are forecast to come on line in the next few years. Australian iron ore production alone is expected to increase by a further 196 million tonnes between 2014 and 2018….

Even as the risks for global iron ore supply are strongly tilted to the upside for the time being, the outlook for Chinese demand, in contrast to optimistic forecasts of producers, is skewed heavily to the downside. The key downside risk is of course the prospect of a multi-year and deep correction in real estate investment.�Given the epic nature of the ‘stock’ and ‘flow’ adjustment that China’s real estate market faces, the best case scenario is probably that real estate investment (c.151?2% of GDP), bolstered by considerable policy support, could achieve a soft landing with zero growth over the next 2-3 years…

The worst case is that increasingly entrenched deflationary dynamics and the unprecedented weight of excess supply (the value of unfinished real estate projects at market prices reached a mind-boggling 75% of GDP in 2014) mean the real estate sector is relatively impervious to stimulus and real estate investment likely to fall sharply for several years.

Another critical dimension is China’s increasingly unsustainable levels of air pollution which is generating mounting political pressure for sharp reductions in steel, cement and, of course, coal output. As with the real estate sector, the best that can be said is that China’s pollution problem has perhaps stopped getting worse over the last year.�The tough decisions and the real economic pain continue to lie ahead, however, with some estimates finding that China’s industrial production might need to fall by as much as 40% to meet global pollution standards.�

As a reminder, here’s the graphic on the relationship between industrial production and efforts to remedy the country’s pollution problem:

China’s domestic steel prices have fallen to near record discount of c.25% vs. global prices. Meanwhile, China’s steel exports have soared by over 40 million tonnes over the last year; easily the biggest annual gain on record with growth of nearly 60%...

Chinese producers have been able to slash steel export prices (which appear to follow domestic prices with a lag of about five months) as the collapse in iron ore prices is (temporarily) boosting margins…

As already emphasized, there appears to be little to interrupt these strongly deflationary dynamics any time soon. With the large iron ore producers likely to keep increasing supply until prices fall to close to their estimated marginal cost of $35 per tonne, further falls in iron prices look inevitable. China’s continuing real estate correction and anti-pollution drive will continue to weigh on domestic demand although sharp reductions in domestic output ultimately required are likely to continue to be resisted in the short term by the authorities given their high cost in terms of output and employment.Domestic steel prices should fall sharply while China’s steel exports look set to continue soaring, procuring further strong downward pressure on global prices…

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the decisively precarious situation that Beijing finds itself in as China attempts to project its economic and military prowess to the rest of the world. Call it the growing pains of a rising superpower, but don't call it an enviable position and don't be surprised to discover that contrary to what the Ministry of Finance steadfastly proclaims, there may indeed be such a thing as Chinese QE.

�

FINANCIAL REPRESSION - Net Bank Interest

Financial Repression, Central Banks, Credit Expansion, and the Importance of Being Impatient 04-06-15 John Mauldin

We live in a time of unprecedented financial repression. As I have continued writing about this, I have become increasingly angry about the fact that central banks almost everywhere have decided to address the economic woes of the world by driving down the returns on the savings of those who can least afford it – retirees and pensioners.

This week’s Outside the Box, from my good friend Chris Whalen of Kroll Bond Rating Agency, goes farther and outlines how a low-interest-rate and massive QE environment is also destructive of other parts of the economy. Counterintuitively, the policies pursued by central banks are actually driving the deflationary environment rather than fighting it.

To further Chris’s point I want to share with you a graph that he sent me, from a later essay he wrote. It shows that the cost of funds for US banks has dropped over $100 billion since the financial crisis, but their net interest income is almost exactly the same. What changed? Banks are now paying you and me and businesses $100 billion less. The Fed’s interest-rate policy has meant a great deal less income for US savers.

It is of the highest irony that Keynesians wanted to launch a QE policy that would increase the value of financial assets (like stocks), which they claimed would produce a wealth effect. I made fun of this policy some five years ago by calling it “trickle-down monetary policy.” Subsequent research has verified that there is no wealth effect from QE. Well, it did make our stocks go up, on the backs of savers. We’ve transferred interest income from savers into the stock market. We’ve made retirement far riskier for our older pensioners than it should be.

As Chris Whalen writes:

Indeed, in the present interest rate environment, to paraphrase John Dizard of the Financial Times, it has become mathematically impossible for fiduciaries [brokers, investment advisors and managers of pension funds and annuities] to meet the beneficiaries’ future investment return target needs through the prudent buying of securities.

Everywhere I go I talk with investment advisors and brokers who are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to create retirement portfolios that provide sufficient income without significantly moving out the risk curve at precisely the wrong time in their client’s lives. It is a conundrum that has been made for more difficult by Federal Reserve policy.

Economics Professor Larry Kotlikoff (Boston University) and our mutual friend syndicated financial columnist Scott Burns came by to visit me last week. I have talked with Larry on and off over the last few years, and Scott and I go back literally decades. A few years ago, Scott and Larry wrote a very good book called�The Clash of Generations.�Now, Larry has branched off on his own and written a really powerful manual on Social Security called�Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.

I will admit I have not paid much attention to Social Security. I just assumed I should start mine when I’m 70, as so many columns I have read suggested. Larry and I recently spent an hour discussing the Social Security system (or perhaps it would be better to call it the Social Security Maze). Three thousand pages of law and tens of thousands of regulations and so many nuances and “gotchas” that it is really difficult to understand what might be best in your particular circumstances. Larry asked me questions for about two minutes and then proceeded to make me $40,000 over the next five years. It turns out I qualify for an obscure (at least to me) regulation that allows me to get some Social Security income for four years prior to turning 70 without affecting my post-70 benefits. There are scores of such obscure rules.

Larry says it is more often the case than not that he can sit down with somebody and make them more money than they thought they were going to get. As one reviewer says:

This book is necessary for three reasons:

1. Social Security is not intuitive, and sometimes makes no sense at all.
2. Two, Americans act against their best interests, leaving all kinds of money on the table.
3. Three, there is usually a “however” with Social Security rules. Worse, Social Security is now up to three million requests every week, but Congress keeps cutting back budget, staff, hours and whole offices. Combine that with the complexity factor, and the authors conclude you cannot trust what Social Security advises. Great.

If you or your parents are on Social Security or you are approaching “that age,” you really should get this book. Did you know that if you are divorced you can get a check for half of your former spouse’s Social Security income without affecting their income at all? But you can’t know whether this is a good strategy unless you look at other options.

How many retirees or those nearing retirement know about such Social Security options as�file and suspend�(apply for benefits and then don’t take them)? Or�start stop start�(start benefits, stop them, then restart them)? Or– just as important – when and how to use these techniques?�Get What’s Yours�covers the most frequent benefit scenarios faced by married retired couples, by divorced retirees, by widows and widowers, among others. It explains what to do if you’re a retired parent of dependent children, disabled, or an eligible beneficiary who continues to work, and how to plan wisely before�retirement. It addresses the tax consequences of your choices, as well as the financial implications for other investments.

The book is written in Larry’s usual easy-to-read style, and you can jump to the sections that might be most relevant to you. The book is $11 on Kindle and under $15 at Amazon. This might be some of the better financial advice that you get from reading my letter: go get a copy of�Get What’s Yours.

I can’t guarantee it will make you $40,000 in five minutes, but it can show you how to navigate the system. Larry also has a website with some inexpensive software to help you maximize your own Social Security. Seeing as how Social Security is the largest source of income for most US retirees, this is something everyone should pay attention to.

It is time to hit the send button. Quickly, we finalized the agenda for the�2015 Strategic Investment Conference. You can see it by clicking on the link. Then go ahead and register before the price goes up. This really is the best economic conference that I know of anywhere this year.

Your wondering how long they’ll pay me Social Security analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box[email protected]

This research note is based on the presentation given by Christopher Whalen, Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) Senior Managing Director and Head of Research, at the Banque de France on Monday, March 23, 2015, for an event organized by the Global Interdependence Center (GIC) entitled�“New Policies for the Post Crisis Era.”�KBRA is pleased to be a sponsor of the GIC.

Investors are keenly focused on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to see whether the U.S. central bank is prepared to raise interest rates later this year – or next. The attention of the markets has been focused on a single word, “patience,” which has been a key indicator of whether the Fed is going to shift policy after nearly 15 years of maintaining extraordinarily low interest rates. This week, the Fed dropped the word “patience” from its written policy guidance, but KBRA does not believe that the rhetorical change will be meaningful to fixed income investors. We do not expect that the Fed will attempt to raise interest rates for the balance of 2015.

This long anticipated shift in policy guidance by the Fed comes even as interest rates in the EU are negative and the European Central Bank has begun to buy securities in open market operations mimicking those conducted by the FOMC over the past several years. Investors and markets need to appreciate that, regardless of what the FOMC decides this month or next, the global economy continues to suffer from the effects of the financial excesses of the 2000s.

The decision by the ECB to finally begin U.S. style “quantitative easing” (QE) almost eight years after the start of the subprime financial crisis in 2007 speaks directly to the failure of policy to address both the causes and the terrible effects of the financial crisis. Consider several points:

• QE by the ECB must be seen in the context of a decade long period of abnormally low interest rates. U.S. interest rate policy has been essentially unchanged since 2001, when interest rates were cut following the 9/11 attack. The addition of QE 1-3 was an effort at further monetary stimulus beyond zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) meant to boost asset prices and thereby change investor tolerance for risk.
  �
• QE makes sense only from a Keynesian/socialist perspective, however, and ignores the long-term cost of low interest rate policies to individual investors and financial institutions. Indeed, in the present interest rate environment, to paraphrase John Dizard of the�Financial Times,�it has become mathematically impossible for fiduciaries to meet the beneficiaries’ future investment return target needs through the prudent buying of securities. (See John Dizard, “Embrace the contradictions of QE and sell all the good stuff,” Financial Times, March 14, 2015.)
  �
• The downside of QE in the U.S. and EU is that it does not address the core problems of hidden off- balance sheet debt that caused the massive “run on liquidity” in 2008. That is, banks and markets in the U.S. globally face tens of trillions of dollars in "off-balance sheet" debt that has not been resolved. The bad debt which is visible on the books of U.S. and EU banks is also a burden in the sense that bank managers know that it must eventually be resolved. Whether we talk of loans by German banks to Greece or home equity loans in the U.S. for homes that are underwater on the first mortgage, bad debt is a drag on economic growth.
  �
• Despite the fact that many of these debts are uncollectible, governments in the U.S. and EU refuse to restructure because doing so implies capital losses for banks and further expenses for cash- strapped governments. In effect, the Fed and ECB have decided to address the issue of debt by slowly confiscating value from investors via negative rates, this because the fiscal authorities in the respective industrial nations cannot or will not address the problem directly.
  �
• ZIRP and QE as practiced by the Fed and ECB are not boosting, but instead depressing, private sector economic activity. By using bank reserves to acquire government and agency securities, the FOMC has actually been retarding private economic growth, even while pushing up the prices of financial assets around the world.
  �
• ZIRP has reduced the cost of funds for the $15 trillion asset U.S. banking system from roughly half a trillion dollars annually to less than $50 billion in 2014. This decrease in the interest expense for banks comes directly out of the pockets of savers and financial institutions. While the Fed pays banks 25bp for their reserve deposits, the remaining spread earned on the Fed’s massive securities portfolio is transferred to the U.S. Treasury – a policy that does nothing to support credit creation or growth. The income taken from bond investors due to ZIRP and QE is far larger.
  �
• No matter how low interest rates go and how much debt central banks buy, the fact of financial repression where savers are penalized to advantage debtors has an overall deflationary impact on the global economy. Without a commensurate increase in national income, the elevated asset prices resulting from ZIRP and QE cannot be validated and sustained. Thus with the end of QE in the U.S. and the possibility of higher interest rates, global investors face the decline of valuations for both debt and equity securities.
  �
• In opposition to the intended goal of low interest rate and QE policies, we also have a regressive framework of regulations and higher bank capital requirements via Basel III and other policies that are actually limiting the leverage of the global financial system. The fact that banks cannot or will not lend to many parts of society because of harsh new financial regulations only exacerbates the impact of financial repression. Thus we take income from savers to advantage debtors, while limiting credit to society as a whole. Only large private corporations and government sponsored enterprises with access to equally large banks and global capital markets are able to function and grow in this environment.

So what is to be done? KBRA believes that the FOMC and policy makers in the U.S. and EU need to refocus their efforts on first addressing the issue of excessive debt and secondly rebalancing fiscal policies so as to boost private sector economic activity. Low or even negative interest rate policies which punish savers in order to pretend that bad debts are actually good are only making things worse and accelerate global deflation. Around the globe, nations from China to Brazil and Greece are all feeling the adverse effects of excessive debt and the related decline in commodity prices and overall economic activity. This decline, in turn, is being felt via lower prices for both commodities and traded goods – that is, deflation.

In the U.S., sectors such as housing and energy, the effects of weak consumer activity and oversupply are combining into a perfect storm of deflation. For example, The Atlanta Fed forecast for real GDP has been falling steadily as the underlying Blue Chip economic forecasts have also declined. The drop in capital expenditures related to oil and gas have resulted in a sharp decline in related economic activity and employment. Falling prices for oil and other key industrial commodities, weak private sector credit creation, falling transaction volumes in the U.S. housing sector, and other macroeconomic indicators all suggest that economic growth remains quite fragile.

To deal with this dangerous situation, the FOMC should move to gradually increase interest rates to restore cash flow to the financial system, following the famous dictum of Adam Smith that the “Great Wheel” of circulation is the means by which the flow of goods and services moves through the economy:

“The great wheel of circulation is altogether different from the goods which are circulated by means of it. The revenue of the society consists altogether in those goods, and not in the wheel which circulates them” (Smith 1811: 202).

Increased regulation and a decrease in the effective leverage in many sectors of banking and commerce have contributed to a slowing of credit creation and economic activity overall. And most importantly, the issue of unresolved debt, on and off balance sheet, remains a dead weight retarding economic growth. For this reason, KBRA believes that investors ought to become impatient with policy makers and encourage new approaches to boosting economic growth.

• U.S. Real Estate Prices Show Signs of Rising Again�(Published February 23, 2015)
  �
• GSE Litigation Affirms that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Sovereign Credits�(Published February 19, 2015)
  �
• Swiss Francs & Global Debt Deflation�(Published January 21, 2015)

Analytical Contact:�Christopher Whalen, Senior Managing Director [email protected], (646) 731-2366