Mint – Bill Blain’s Morning Porridge - March 8 2013
There seems to be something wrong with our bl**dy ships today…
This morning: US jobs number, central bank easing, Cyprus again, don’t mention Italy elections and best not to talk about the OMT, UCFM alert, and a minor rant about the military industrial complex…
Today's big event will be the US Non-Farm payrolls. The consensus is it will be strong. What happens next is the issue. How much, if at all, will debt sequestration hit the economy? Should we be worried about the potential of US Government shutdown in March? Markets are split on that one - even though it doesn't seem to be holding back the US stock market which continues to rise. We say… damn the torpedoes (oh, they can’t afford them anyway), and full speed ahead!
Some critical moments for markets yesterday. Last comments from BOJ governor Shirakawa who says no to further monetary stimulus - he's only 10 days to go, and already the yen is weakening and the Nikkei on fire in expectation that his successor's policies will be more Abe-centric.
As euro growth expectations tumble to -0.5%, Draghi at the ECB says he will maintain easy (?) monetary stance as "long as needed" (winning another award for semantical doublethink as the only economy (well block) not really easing) by holding rates unchanged. The Bank of England's increasingly pre-departure minded King confirms no more QE (watch that space). The Fed will keep doing what the Fed will do to keep US rates low.
In the news we got Cyprus – all kinds of potential shenaginans in prospect as depositors flee, Russians circle some of the troubled banks (making it so much more difficult for Europe to bail out the banks), and still no agreement on what happens. A classic do nothing and everything will happen approach to making a problem into a crisis. Run away is our considered advice. (On the other hand, Greek assets look very money good...who else is a buyer?)
Markets are taking it all in their stride though. Europe took a boost from the fact the ECB at least discussed easing – although it hid behind the “employment is not our concern” blind eye approach to the economic good of its population. Portugal put on stable outlook by S&P put a bid on PGBS – although we have serious doubts how much longer its siege economy can hold out without some real economic relief – more about that next week. Decent Spain auctions. All kind of confirms the unreality of the situation that a not a single one of the blogs I get bombarded with each morning even mentioned Italy.
And why worry about Italy..? No reason till there is clear division or a spat between Italy and rest of EU. Till that happens...move along folks, nothing to see…move along..
Couple of blogs this morning talking about OMT. Careful. Best not to mention it. The OMT is like heaven…No proof it actually exists. As long as you believe in it, it’s great. Problem is...some folk are wondering if it's real, and if sinner European economies really will be rescued by unlimited buying. Heresy...burn the heretics.
The ECB’s very own L Ron Hubbard, Mario Draghi, burst a teardrop or two when he reminded us his OMT religion has “rules” and will only promise salvation to countries already saved in terms of being able to issue debt. Er, I haven’t seen the rules...apparently they will be different for each country, involving complete subservience to the ECB and its minions. And there won’t be post-sign up indulgences for countries like Ireland and Portugal that already paid the former ECB high-priest’s rules! I suspect M Draghi-Hubbard is making the rules up as he goes along…
Meanwhile the new issue market continues to thunder out a run of new issues, but investors I’m talking to are increasingly jaded and less willing to participate. Perhaps it's an important sign, but a Bloomberg journalist send me a comment yesterday that S&P has given a B rating to Ukrainian Chicken Farm company. All readers should be familiar with the Blain/St-Johnston UCFM theory of Primary Market collapse.
Meanwhile a short rant about sequester, tanks and growth..
A side word on sequestration, government closedown etc. The crisis for spending in the US remains the growing future costs of social care - an urgent debate that has hardly begun in Europe where it is too sacred a cow to even begin to contemplate. That's a political role-of-the-state decision of first egg proportions.
Most of the attention has so far been on the effect of sequestration on US defence - an area ripe for rationalisation. Economic historians can point to defence spending as a prime driver for the US economy, creating booms during WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Reagan era. Others may say the booms were due to the increased money in workers pockets from inflated military spending - effective jobs policy! For every new tank in the 1950s, the Yanks probably built 50,000 new cars!
But, everyone, (except defence contractors), acknowledges the military spending big-industry dynamic has changed – defence evolves. Just as victory is no longer about the weight of shot in a three-decker's broadside, the amount of armour over a battleships's magazine, or the number of air-wings a carrier task force can carry, now it’s about stealth (until a small boy at an air-show asks, "if that's a stealth bomber daddy, why can I see it?"), computing power and pinpoint strike capacity. You don't need a 70-tonne tank to take out a terrorist 2,000 miles away, and I'm pretty sure the latest radars can see these $2 squizillion B2 bombers.
For a business that is all about shocking and surprising the other side, defence is very conservative. Every army in history has demanded more spears and swords - right up to the moment the new chaps turned up with guns. Oops. The temptation is great. Economies like Rome and the British Empire bust themselves on military spending. Britain exhausted itself building dreadnoughts that we used once (and showed a disturbing tendency to blow up).
The US numbers are huge: $210bn just to keep the US military fuelled and fed, $135bn to pay the troops and pension them, and a mere $95bn buying them new toys - that's p.a. All the attention has been on cutting the “wasteful” new toy programmes, but rationalising the first two is the real issue. I wasn't particularly surprised 1.3m civilians are on the defence payroll - 500k of them mere consultants. Thats about 1.5 civilians for each serviceman.
Daring to question military spending is heretical. Every hatchet-handling Republican desperate to cut government spending, or tree-hugging Democrat singing peace'n'love songs will fight to the last breath to preserve local defence contracts and keep bases open. As a result, even as the US forces prepare for redeployment to the Pacific Rim, the army is still getting new cold war era tanks - which even it admits it hardly needs.
I read the 30\30\30\10 funding split twixt Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines has barely changed since the last war - highlighting how institutionalised the interests of the massive defence lobby have become.
In short - there must be an enormous amount of fat to take out of the institutionalised and indolent US military budget without damaging its abilities. And, as economic history shows, new defence spending has a pretty strong multiplier effect. So stop building tanks and carriers and evolve. Build something even more exciting that will appeal to the little boy in all of us.. (unless you are a girl of course...in which case sorry), while making Johnny Taliban go think again.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying perhaps US sequestration will drive change in the US military-industrial complex and therefore provide a further long-term economic activity boost providing better and more economic defence!
Enough... back to markets.. Have a great weekend
Bill Blain
0207 786 3877
(Recommended further reading on the military-industrial complex: How mumbo jumbo conquered the world, by Francis Wheen: the other BB)
Central Banks Disappoint: ING IM
Willem Verhagen, chief economist at ING Investment Management in response to the Bank of England’s base rate decision.
In the central banking space we were a little disappointed with the outcomes of the Bank of England (BoE) and European Central Bank meetings this week. Even though it was not our base case we thought there was a decent chance of additional easing by the BoE this week, especially in view of the fact that three Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) members voted for more easing last month.
This easing could come in the form of quantitative easing but also via more credit easing measures aimed to get more credit flowing to SMEs, because the latter implies more risks to the BoE balance sheet and (in the view of the MPC) involves a political decision about the allocation of capital, the MPC strongly feels that such measures should be coordinated with financial regulators and the Treasury.
Continue reading "Central Banks Disappoint: ING IM" »
Posted at 02:19 PM in News & Comment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)