Connect with us

Is Bitcoin now too big too fail? What would happen if cryptocurrencies crash?

As of early December 2021, a single bitcoin is trading at a little over…
The post Is Bitcoin now too big too fail? What would happen if cryptocurrencies crash? first appeared on Trading and Investment News.

Published

on

As of early December 2021, a single bitcoin is trading at a little over $49,500. With circulating supply of 18,891,656 BTC, that gives the leading cryptocurrency a total market capitalisation of $937,782,834,499 – just shy of $1 trillion. The market capitalisation of Ether, the digital currency of the Ethereum smart contracts blockchain, is $500,534,205,575.

The combined value of all 7940 cryptocurrencies and digital tokens listed on the cryptocurrencies market data site Coinmarketcap.com is over $2.6 trillion, 42% of which is accounted for by Bitcoin.

cryptocurrency chart

Source: Coinmarketcap.com

The value of the cryptocurrency market is currently around the same size as France’s 2019 GDP and only a little, $100 billion or so, short of the UK’s. Bitcoin’s market capitalisation alone is greater than the 2019 GDP of the Netherlands.

Given the huge amount of wealth now tied up in cryptocurrencies, and especially bitcoin, what kind of impact would it now have on financial markets if, as sceptics are still convinced will happen, their valuations go to zero? If cryptocurrencies really are nothing more than a speculative bubble, the mother of all financial bubbles, and will eventually be revealed as The Emperor’s New Clothes, that should be what happens.

If and when collective belief in bitcoin’s ability to establish itself and the broader cryptocurrencies market as a mainstream asset class dissipates, it should lose all economic value. That might happen because global regulators like the SEC in the USA and the UK’s FCA follow the example already set by China and ban unregulated cryptocurrencies as offering a too effective and easy route for money launderers.

If blockchain-based cryptocurrencies exist 10 years from now, and the evidence suggests they probably will, they may not be today’s. But rather regulated alternatives that offer the technological advantages of digital currencies built on more advanced forms of blockchain than bitcoin but not the anonymity that poses such a problem for regulators, lawmakers and law enforcement.

That’s the obvious reason why many are still sceptical of today’s cryptocurrency market and call it a huge bubble. And the fact there are thousands of tradable cryptocurrencies and other digital assets like NFTs suggests there is no way all of them, or even many of them, have a viable long term future.

But with so much wealth now tied up in bitcoin and cryptocurrencies what would be the impact on the global financial system if it were to evaporate overnight? Or through a longer, more drawn-out process over months or even years?

Is Bitcoin becoming too big to fail? And if it is too big to fail might that mean financial regulators trying to find a way to bring it into the regulatory fold and part of mainstream financial markets that somehow solves the anonymity issue?

Who owns and trades Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

An investigation by The Economist into how closely intertwined crypto and mainstream financial markets have become found that as of August 2021, institutional investors accounted for 63% of cryptocurrency trading. In 2017 institutional investors accounted for just 10% of crypto trading volumes, demonstrating how the market has changed from one dominated by individuals.

The hedge fund SkyBridge capital is offered up as an example. Run by Anthony Scaramucci, the $3.5 billion fund started to make allocations to Bitcoin in November 2020 and launched a dedicated $500 million Bitcoin fund in January of this year. At the time of the investigation four months ago, 9% of SkyBridge’s main fund was allocated to Bitcoin and the dedicated fund worth around $700 million.

The 26,000 investors in SkyBridge Capitals funds are said to include sovereign funds as well as wealthy individuals and family offices. The institutional investors in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies now range from hedge funds and even mutual funds to university endowments and even some companies. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk famously announced in February the electric cars company had invested $1.5 billion in Bitcoin.

How much wealth would really be wiped out by a cryptocurrencies crash?

The large majority of institutional investors exposed to Bitcoin bought into the market from 2020 onwards. That means, says the same study in The Economist, their average purchase price is $37,000, leaving them far more exposed to a crash than earlier investors who would mainly take relatively light real losses. Even if the loss of huge unrealised paper gains would hurt badly psychologically.

But losses would spread much further than those from the direct loss of value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The roughly $40 billion start-up data company PitchBook says has been invested in publicly listed crypto market companies since 2010 would also be largely wiped out.

Fintech and payments companies like Revolut, PayPal and even Visa, which this year launched a credit card offering rewards points paid in Bitcoin, would lose what has become a valuable, quickly growing part of their businesses. That would almost certainly seriously hit their market valuations. Makers of the powerful processors used by cryptocurrency miners, that are financially incentivised through cryptocurrency rewards to provide the computing power P2P blockchains require to run, like Nvidia, would also lose a profitable chunk of their business.

Could a crypto markets crash infect mainstream finance?

The failure of publicly listed companies worth a combined sum in the hundreds of billions, as well as a heavy hit to the valuations of mainstream financial sector companies with exposure to crypto markets, would have a meaningful impact on mainstream financial markets. But while it would be a shock it probably won’t result in major structural damage.

What, however, could is the fact as much as 90% of the total wealth invested in Bitcoin is bound up in derivatives such as futures and traded on unregulated exchange. Most derivatives positions are taken using leverage, which essentially means borrowing money to magnify gains made in successful trades. However, the losses taken in losing trades are equally magnified.

Leveraged trading means any major downside swing in cryptocurrency prices would trigger a large number of margin calls forcing traders with losing positions to either liquidate them and lock in the losses or come up with the cash to cover them. The latter choice often means traders have to sell off other assets to free up liquid cash to cover margin calls on losing trading positions.

That of course further increases downside risk if prices continue to fall. As well as potentially infecting mainstream financial markets such as stock markets if enough conventional assets are sold off to cover mass margin calls, covering them also increases exposure and the extent of potential losses.

On the other hand, enough cryptocurrency investors choosing not to cover margin calls and liquidising losing positions would push crypto markets further down. If it were to become severe enough, the plunge could theoretically become a death spiral for cryptocurrency markets.

A run on cryptocurrency markets would also likely include ‘stable coins’. This category of cryptocurrency, the two largest stable coins are Tether and USD Coin, is used by traders as a proxy for fiat currency that makes it easier to buy, sell and trade cryptocurrencies on exchanges. To track the fiat currencies, most often the USD, stable coins are backed by mainstream assets. Tether, for example, said at the end of March that the value of its issued Tether coins is 50% backed by commercial paper, 12% in secured loans and 10% in corporate bonds, funds and precious metals.

A run on Tether would force the company behind it to liquidate assets to cover outward flows. With Tether currently worth over $750 billion in circulation that could, said the ratings agency Fitch in July, “affect the stability of short term credit markets”.

Just how leveraged are cryptocurrency markets?

Because cryptocurrency exchanges are unregulated it is difficult to tell exactly how highly leveraged exposure to the market is. However, one way to get a clue, says Carnegie Mellon University’s Kyle Soska, is to look at the total value of the total cryptocurrencies derivatives contracts open at any one time. Soska says that had increased from $1.6 billion at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic to $24 billion by this summer.

It’s not clear how much leverage is involved in those positions but on May 18 this year, Bitcoin’s value dropped by around a third. The value of positions forced into liquidation by trading platforms because margin calls weren’t covered, came to $9 billion. If the Bitcoin price had continued to drop, which it didn’t, the value of losing positions forced into liquidation would have been expected to rise sharply.

What could trigger a run on cryptocurrencies?

Most observers of crypto markets break investors into three main groups:

  • Fundamentalists
  • Tacticians
  • Speculators

Fundamentalist investors are those with firm loyalty to the concept of cryptocurrencies and their role in the future of global finance. Most have been relatively early investors in cryptocurrencies and would mainly be affected by the loss of unrealised paper gains. However, they are also the most unlikely to sell out and many will hold onto their crypto assets in the belief of an eventual recovery, even if 90% or more of their value is lost.

Speculators are defined as those simply hoping to profit from trading cryptocurrency markets and have no genuine ideological attachment to the asset class. This is usually the most highly leveraged category of investor and the one that would be expected to vanish quickest if markets start to tumble.

The second group is that which the fate of crypto markets will rest on. Tacticians are usually invested in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies without using leverage. They see their investment as one part of a broader portfolio and hope to profit from the rise in the value of cryptocurrencies driven by more people investing in them.

If enough tacticians lose faith and sell off crypto assets after speculators have fled the market, that would drive valuations right back down to where they were before the start of the pandemic or even to levels last seen in 2016 or below.

A mass sell-off could be triggered in a few ways. The first would be regulatory intervention due to worries over the money laundering potential represented by the anonymity afforded by unregulated cryptocurrencies. The second would be a major drop in general market sentiment towards risk catalysed by, for example, banks raising interest rates.

That would be expected to first hit volatile, high risk ‘meme stocks’ like GameStop that are heavily traded by small retail investors as well as the technology stocks, like Tesla, whose valuations look most stretched. Recent months have shown a significant correlation between the market for meme stocks and crypto markets with gains made in one market often reinvested in the other. In the reverse scenario, losses in meme stocks would be expected to be often covered by the sale of crypto assets.

On a larger scale, many of the ‘tactical’ institutional investors that have recently built up exposure to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could well pull out.

If cryptocurrency markets do crash they are now large enough that there would be a significant knock-on impact for mainstream financial markets. The good news is that while it could be very unpleasant it is unlikely to lead to systemic failure as bank balance sheets are not exposed to cryptocurrencies. Even in the case of those banks, like Goldman Sachs, that have launched funds and crypto asset trading and custodial services, it is their clients’ money on the line, not theirs. They will not be at risk of failure.

That could encourage regulators to, at some point, decide markets can take the pain of them bursting crypto markets by outlawing unregulated digital currencies that offer anonymity. And to not intervene in any crash and let it claim victims as a warning against future attempts to bypass regulated markets.

However, if crypto markets continue to grow in value and attract more institutional money, their cross-over with mainstream financial markets will only deepen. That could shift the balance and mean Bitcoin does start to be seen as “too big to fail”.

If a crypto markets crash doesn’t materialise relatively soon, that may well become an increasingly influential consideration in how regulators and governments start to deal with Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies like Ether and Tether.

The post Is Bitcoin now too big too fail? What would happen if cryptocurrencies crash? first appeared on Trading and Investment News.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare…

Published

on

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book 'Life After Lock-Down'

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

on

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) paper released Thursday found that thousands of young children have been taken to the emergency room over the past several years after taking the very common sleep-aid supplement melatonin.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 23, 2020. (Tami Chappell/AFP via Getty Images)

The agency said that melatonin, which can come in gummies that are meant for adults, was implicated in about 7 percent of all emergency room visits for young children and infants “for unsupervised medication ingestions,” adding that many incidents were linked to the ingestion of gummy formulations that were flavored. Those incidents occurred between the years 2019 and 2022.

Melatonin is a hormone produced by the human body to regulate its sleep cycle. Supplements, which are sold in a number of different formulas, are generally taken before falling asleep and are popular among people suffering from insomnia, jet lag, chronic pain, or other problems.

The supplement isn’t regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and does not require child-resistant packaging. However, a number of supplement companies include caps or lids that are difficult for children to open.

The CDC report said that a significant number of melatonin-ingestion cases among young children were due to the children opening bottles that had not been properly closed or were within their reach. Thursday’s report, the agency said, “highlights the importance of educating parents and other caregivers about keeping all medications and supplements (including gummies) out of children’s reach and sight,” including melatonin.

The approximately 11,000 emergency department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestions by infants and young children during 2019–2022 highlight the importance of educating parents and other caregivers about keeping all medications and supplements (including gummies) out of children’s reach and sight.

The CDC notes that melatonin use among Americans has increased five-fold over the past 25 years or so. That has coincided with a 530 percent increase in poison center calls for melatonin exposures to children between 2012 and 2021, it said, as well as a 420 percent increase in emergency visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion by young children or infants between 2009 and 2020.

Some health officials advise that children under the age of 3 should avoid taking melatonin unless a doctor says otherwise. Side effects include drowsiness, headaches, agitation, dizziness, and bed wetting.

Other symptoms of too much melatonin include nausea, diarrhea, joint pain, anxiety, and irritability. The supplement can also impact blood pressure.

However, there is no established threshold for a melatonin overdose, officials have said. Most adult melatonin supplements contain a maximum of 10 milligrams of melatonin per serving, and some contain less.

Many people can tolerate even relatively large doses of melatonin without significant harm, officials say. But there is no antidote for an overdose. In cases of a child accidentally ingesting melatonin, doctors often ask a reliable adult to monitor them at home.

Dr. Cora Collette Breuner, with the Seattle Children’s Hospital at the University of Washington, told CNN that parents should speak with a doctor before giving their children the supplement.

“I also tell families, this is not something your child should take forever. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of taking this is on your child’s growth and development,” she told the outlet. “Taking away blue-light-emitting smartphones, tablets, laptops, and television at least two hours before bed will keep melatonin production humming along, as will reading or listening to bedtime stories in a softly lit room, taking a warm bath, or doing light stretches.”

In 2022, researchers found that in 2021, U.S. poison control centers received more than 52,000 calls about children consuming worrisome amounts of the dietary supplement. That’s a six-fold increase from about a decade earlier. Most such calls are about young children who accidentally got into bottles of melatonin, some of which come in the form of gummies for kids, the report said.

Dr. Karima Lelak, an emergency physician at Children’s Hospital of Michigan and the lead author of the study published in 2022 by the CDC, found that in about 83 percent of those calls, the children did not show any symptoms.

However, other children had vomiting, altered breathing, or other symptoms. Over the 10 years studied, more than 4,000 children were hospitalized, five were put on machines to help them breathe, and two children under the age of two died. Most of the hospitalized children were teenagers, and many of those ingestions were thought to be suicide attempts.

Those researchers also suggested that COVID-19 lockdowns and virtual learning forced more children to be at home all day, meaning there were more opportunities for kids to access melatonin. Also, those restrictions may have caused sleep-disrupting stress and anxiety, leading more families to consider melatonin, they suggested.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Red Candle In The Wind

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by…

Published

on

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by printing at 275,000 against a consensus call of 200,000. We say superficially, because the downward revisions to prior months totalled 167,000 for December and January, taking the total change in employed persons well below the implied forecast, and helping the unemployment rate to pop two-ticks to 3.9%. The U6 underemployment rate also rose from 7.2% to 7.3%, while average hourly earnings growth fell to 0.2% m-o-m and average weekly hours worked languished at 34.3, equalling pre-pandemic lows.

Undeterred by the devil in the detail, the algos sprang into action once exchanges opened. Market darling NVIDIA hit a new intraday high of $974 before (presumably) the humans took over and sold the stock down more than 10% to close at $875.28. If our suspicions are correct that it was the AIs buying before the humans started selling (no doubt triggering trailing stops on the way down), the irony is not lost on us.

The 1-day chart for NVIDIA now makes for interesting viewing, because the red candle posted on Friday presents quite a strong bearish engulfing signal. Volume traded on the day was almost double the 15-day simple moving average, and similar price action is observable on the 1-day charts for both Intel and AMD. Regular readers will be aware that we have expressed incredulity in the past about the durability the AI thematic melt-up, so it will be interesting to see whether Friday’s sell off is just a profit-taking blip, or a genuine trend reversal.

AI equities aside, this week ought to be important for markets because the BTFP program expires today. That means that the Fed will no longer be loaning cash to the banking system in exchange for collateral pledged at-par. The KBW Regional Banking index has so far taken this in its stride and is trading 30% above the lows established during the mini banking crisis of this time last year, but the Fed’s liquidity facility was effectively an exercise in can-kicking that makes regional banks a sector of the market worth paying attention to in the weeks ahead. Even here in Sydney, regulators are warning of external risks posed to the banking sector from scheduled refinancing of commercial real estate loans following sharp falls in valuations.

Markets are sending signals in other sectors, too. Gold closed at a new record-high of $2178/oz on Friday after trading above $2200/oz briefly. Gold has been going ballistic since the Friday before last, posting gains even on days where 2-year Treasury yields have risen. Gold bugs are buying as real yields fall from the October highs and inflation breakevens creep higher. This is particularly interesting as gold ETFs have been recording net outflows; suggesting that price gains aren’t being driven by a retail pile-in. Are gold buyers now betting on a stagflationary outcome where the Fed cuts without inflation being anchored at the 2% target? The price action around the US CPI release tomorrow ought to be illuminating.

Leaving the day-to-day movements to one side, we are also seeing further signs of structural change at the macro level. The UK budget last week included a provision for the creation of a British ISA. That is, an Individual Savings Account that provides tax breaks to savers who invest their money in the stock of British companies. This follows moves last year to encourage pension funds to head up the risk curve by allocating 5% of their capital to unlisted investments.

As a Hail Mary option for a government cruising toward an electoral drubbing it’s a curious choice, but it’s worth highlighting as cash-strapped governments increasingly see private savings pools as a funding solution for their spending priorities.

Of course, the UK is not alone in making creeping moves towards financial repression. In contrast to announcements today of increased trade liberalisation, Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers has in the recent past flagged his interest in tapping private pension savings to fund state spending priorities, including defence, public housing and renewable energy projects. Both the UK and Australia appear intent on finding ways to open up the lungs of their economies, but government wants more say in directing private capital flows for state goals.

So, how far is the blurring of the lines between free markets and state planning likely to go? Given the immense and varied budgetary (and security) pressures that governments are facing, could we see a re-up of WWII-era Victory bonds, where private investors are encouraged to do their patriotic duty by directly financing government at negative real rates?

That would really light a fire under the gold market.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 19:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending