Seeking Alpha

Bubbles and Busts'  Instablog

Bubbles and Busts
Send Message
PhD Candidate in Economics at George Mason University. Received a Master's in Public Administration from George Washington University. Majored in economics and finance at Washington University in St. Louis. Previously worked as an Options Market Maker/Trader.
My blog:
Bubbles and Busts
View Bubbles and Busts' Instablogs on:
  • Stock Market Pessimism Rises But Actions Speak Louder Than Words

    Reading through countless blogs each day, the general tone regarding global economic growth and stock markets is highly pessimistic. In fact, many investors and market watchers have recently been arguing that the extreme pessimism could be a bullish contrarian signal. This week's report from AAII (courtesy of Pragmatic Capitalism) provides support for this thesis:

    Bullish sentiment, expectations that stock prices will rise over the next six months, plunged 8.0 percentage points to 22.2%. This is the lowest that optimism has been since August 26, 2010. It is also the 68th lowest bullish sentiment reading out of more than 1,300 weekly readings in the survey's history. Optimism has now been below its historical average of 39% for 16 consecutive weeks.

    Although I normally enjoy taking a contrarian perspective, history has also taught me that actions often speak louder than words. Here's a look at the S&P 500 over the past year:
    Source: Yahoo Finance

    This market is up nearly 10% year-to-date and almost 8% from its recent low less than two months ago. Are the pessimists hiding out in options? Here's a look at the VIX over the past year:
    Source: Yahoo Finance

    The VIX is down approximately 40% in the past couple months and approaching its lowest level in the past few years.

    These two charts tell a very different story than the one currently being portrayed by mainstream media. While sentiment surveys are turning overly bearish, investors with money on the line are clearly willing to buy and/or hold stocks at higher prices. Further, the rapidly declining VIX suggests a minimal desire for protection. As the actions of investors have diverged from their words, the former likely offers better insight in to actual market sentiment. Over the years, corporations have clearly learned how to game earnings in order to consistently beat expectations by a significant margin. Maybe investors have finally learned how to game sentiment indicators to bait others in to following the trend.

    Jul 20 8:06 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Is The Return Of Auto Subprime Lending And GM "Channel Stuffing" Connected?

    Cardiff Garcia over at FT Alphaville has a recent post up on the return of auto subprime lending. Apparently lending standards are being increasingly relaxed, leading to an increase in lending activity. Garcia questions whether this news is good or bad, coming to the conclusion (my emphasis):

    Whatever the case, we noted in May that while the pace of car sales in the US has picked up this year, it's still much slower than for most of the past decade. More and more it's clear that this is an ongoing rebound following the end of a depreciation cycle. (The pickup in lending activity is at least a sign of expected sustained demand in this sector, so there's that.)

    This sounds plausible enough but my nature involves being skeptical. Let's consider a different thesis on the rise in subprime lending.

    Over the past couple years auto manufacturers, namely GM, have been loading up dealer inventories to falsely promote higher sales. What many people may not realize, is that sales are booked when the cars are "sold" to dealers regardless of whether the dealers are able to sell the vehicle to end users. Here is a chart from Zero Hedge depicting the rise in GM dealer inventory:

    This practice, known as "channel stuffing", is actually part of a recent class action lawsuit filed against GM by investors. As the dealers are left with increasing unsold inventory, costs of storage are certainly rising. If sales to end users are not keeping pace with the desire of GM to unload inventory (clearly the case), one way to spur increasing end sales would clearly be lowering lending standards. The pickup in lending is therefore not a sign of expected demand but rather a means to increase demand. Is it possible the decline in credit quality of auto loans is a means to cover-up "channel stuffing" practices? If so, when subprime defaults eventually rise, who will be left with the losses?

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Tags: GM
    Jul 19 11:28 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Making IOER Negative Equates To Raising Taxes And Raises Potential Of New Recession

    Earlier today an analyst from Jeffries', David Zervos, published a research note implicating that the Fed may cut interest on excess reserves (IOER) from 0.25% to -0.25%. Here's an excerpt courtesy of Zero Hedge:

    The quote from the last FOMC minutes suggested the Fed wanted a "new tool". Well here ya go Ben, take the IOER to -25bps, take 2s to -50bps and watch banks start setting LIBOR negative!! If you really want to push the portfolio balance channel this will wake up all the sleeply reserve managers with liquidity needs in USD. Of course as short rates plunge into negative territory, inflation expectations will rise sharply. It will be important to not expect too much love for the long end if this happens. And like I said above, even if this is a low probability event, the mere possibility of it happening makes levered longs in the front end a fantastic trade! No one is prepared for it. Just ask yourself how many risk management departments have shocked 2yr notes to -50bps and 3ml to -30bps in their VAR analytics. Not many!!

    Many investors seem to view this action positively, believing the resulting increase in bank lending will lead to higher growth and inflation. Before presenting the likelihood of such an action by the Fed, it's important to clarify the major effects of making IOER negative.

    Currently, banks are holding approximately $1.45 trillion in excess reserves:
    As Mish Shedlock and Steve Keen have recently reconfirmed, banks cannot lend reserves. Reserves are brought into existence and removed from the system through open market operations. The Fed therefore controls the amount of reserves in the system, as a helpful tool in maintaining its interest rate policy. Since members of the Fed/FOMC and most economists view QE as monetary stimulus, I presume that the Fed will not elect to accompany a reduction in IOER with a policy of reversing QE and reducing its balance sheet. If the IOER becomes negative, given that assumption, banks will face a decision between increasing lending to drive up required reserves or continuing to hold excess reserves at a penalty rate.

    Faced with this decision, banks may initially seek to increase lending. The drop in IOER acts similarly to a rate cut and at a negative rate may encourage banks to even extend loans that, though not directly profitable, are expected to lose less than the cost of holding corresponding excess reserves. Regardless, the amount of new borrowing required to significantly reduce excess reserves is inconceivable (a 10% reserve requirement suggests $14 trillion). The current amount of excess reserves will therefore likely remain well above $1 trillion, which is bad for banks and stocks.

    Why? Well, given the current IOER rate, banks are effectively earning $3.5 billion per year, risk-free ($1.4 trillion * 0.25%). Flipping the current IOR to negative and maintaining a similar level of excess reserves suggests a yearly drain from the financial system of $3.5 billion. This reduction in profitability will hurt bank capital, which is ultimately the real constraint on bank lending.

    While a negative IOER will lower bank profits, it will likely increase profits at the Fed (which are transferred to the Treasury). As Zervos points out, this policy change could also push short-term Treasury rates (at least out to 2-years) negative. If that occurs, holders of short-term Treasury notes would join banks in effectively paying the Treasury to hold funds (ie. negative interest income). Although the combination of these factors will reduce the deficit, it will simultaneously reduce net financial assets of the private sector. In that sense, a negative IOER is equivalent to raising taxes.

    Absent countervailing measures to increase the deficit, a reduced deficit will also result in declining corporate profits (ex-Fed). As I've noted previously, the federal deficit has been the primary factor supporting corporate profits over the past few years. With a corporate profit recession already in our midsts, this decision by the Fed could result in a corporate profit depression.

    In my opinion, any optimism regarding a negative IOER is badly misplaced. Rather than sparking new lending, this change in monetary policy will likely bring about the reverse by hurting bank profits and capital. By inflicting a "tax" on the broader private sector, a negative IOER could even dampen corporate profitability and incomes. In the end, a policy of negative IOER might be enough to inspire a massive sell-off in stocks and push the US economy into recession.

    To end on a positive note, I believe it is highly improbable that Bernanke or the Fed enacts such a policy. Apparently Goldman agrees.

    (Note: Above I mentioned Zervos' view that a negative IOER rate would lead to negative short-term Treasury rates. I haven't had enough time to fully think through the possibility, but my initial reaction is skeptical. Other countries currently with negative rates on short-term government debt are either engaged in a monetary union or maintaining a currency floor. Government debt in those instances therefore, apart from safety, also provides an effective call option on higher relative currency valuations. Given that the US dollar is a floating currency, investors/savers could presumably hold dollars instead of Treasuries. This could cause a rise in the dollar exchange rate but would probably keep rates from going negative (absent the Fed adjusting lower the Fed Funds rate). I'll plan to do a follow post on this topic in the near future but, in the meantime, does anyone have helpful thoughts on this topic?)

    Jul 16 7:36 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.