Macro and Credit - The Money Illusion

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -  Daniel J. Boorstin, American historian

Looking at the most recent print in US nonfarm payrolls in conjunction with stronger than expected 2.9% wage growth (AHE) in August, with US Annual core-CPI declining to 2.2% in August vs 2.4% expected, leading to a tentative rebound in gold prices, when it came to selecting our title analogy we decided to steer towards a reference to the seminal work done by Irving Fisher in 1928 in his book "The Money Illusion". In economics, the money illusion is also referred as price illusion. It is the tendency for people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real terms. In other words, the numerical/face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in the general price level (in the past). The term "Money Illusion" was coined by maverick economist Irving Fisher in his book "Stabilizing the Dollar" though it was popularized by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century. Irving Fisher was the first economist to produce what is now called "The Fisher equation" in financial mathematics and economics which estimates the relationship between nominal and real interest rates under inflation. The existence of money illusion is disputed by monetary economists who contend that people act rationally (i.e. think in real prices) with regard to their wealth. Eldar Shafir, Peter A. Diamond, and Amos Tversky (1997) have provided empirical evidence for the existence of the effect and it has been shown to affect behaviour in a variety of experimental and real-world situations in three main ways:

• Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise.
• Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.
• Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.

Apparently "The Money Illusion" influences people's perceptions of outcomes. Experiments were conducted and have shown that people generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as being unfair, but do see a 2% rise in nominal income as fair where there is 4% inflation, despite them being almost rational equivalents. This result is consistent with the "Myopic Loss Aversion theory" but this will probably be an interesting title for another post. The "Money Illusion" is indeed a cognitive bias which can vary depending on the "inflationary/deflationary" context. Numerous studies have documented a negative correlation between nominal yields and inflation. Modigliani and Cohn (1979) assumes that the valuations of the assets differ from their fundamental values because of two inflation-induced errors in judgment: the tendency to capitalise equity earnings at the nominal rate instead of at the real rate, and the inability to understand that, over time, the debts will devalue in real terms. What does it means? Simply that stock prices are overvalued during periods of low inflation. If indeed inflation accelerates, this will lead to some "repricing" and some reversion to the mean. For a bear market to ensue as we have repeated on numerous occasions on this very blog, you need inflation to "accelerate". Past history has shown, what matters is the "velocity" of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years. So, if QE could be seen as "deflationary" then QT could be seen as "inflationary". If the "money illusion" is "fading" and real wages starts accelerating, then the Fed will have no other choice but to pursue a more aggressive hiking pace. Of course if "inflation" is accelerating in conjunction with real wages, then again this will trigger "Bracket creep" being the process by which inflation pushes wages and salaries into higher tax brackets, leading to a fiscal drag situation for those who remember our post from January this year:

"Most progressive tax systems are not adjusted for inflation, as wages and salaries rise in nominal terms under the influence of inflation they become more highly taxed, even though in real terms the value of the wages and salaries has not increased at all. The net effect overall is that in real terms taxes rise unless the tax rates or brackets are adjusted to compensate. That simple." - source Macronomics, January 2018

Yet another illustration of the existence of the "Money illusion" we think but we ramble again...

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at rising inflation creating therefore a shift in the "Money illusion" and what it entails down the line from a liquidity perspective.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The Money illusion is fading
• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

• Macro - The Money illusion is fading

As we indicated back in June 2015 in our conversation "The Third Punic War", bear markets for US equities generally coincide with a significant tick up in core inflation. Also in our January conversation "Bracket creep" we indicated the following:

"As pointed out by Christopher Cole from Artemis Capital in his must read note "Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk - Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987",  the rise of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation was what started a liquidity fire in credit that spread to equities before the 1987 volatility explosion described. But flow wise, as we have pointed out in numerous conversations, the money is flowing "uphill" where all the "fun" is namely the bond market, not "downhill" to the "real economy" so far." - source Macronomics, January 2018

While the latest inflation figure for August is considered as a miss, the Fed has most recently appeared much more hawkish it seems. The big question therefore should be about the strength of inflation. Subdued real wage growth could be one of the reasons put forward for the surprise election of Donald Trump in the United States. The election could be marking a return of Main Street versus Wall Street which has experienced tremendous asset inflations thanks to low volatility and low "perceived" inflation. Yet it seems to us from a "macro" perspective that, indeed the "Money Illusion" is now fading on the back of "QT". 

Is inflation returning? On that subject we read with interest Wells Fargo Economics note from the 12th of September entitled "Inflation not as benign as first indicated by drop in PPI":

"Producer prices came in softer than expected in August, falling 0.1%. The miss stemmed largely from the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins. The underlying trend in inflation continues to inch higher.

At the Margin

• PPI inflation unexpectedly slipped 0.1% in August. Goods prices were flat, but the miss came in large part from services, specifically a 0.9% drop in the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins, not selling prices. Declining margins at machinery and equipment firms accounted for 80% of the decline in services this month and suggest producers may be struggling to pass on rising input costs related to recent tariffs.

Core Inflation Continues to Gradually Climb

• Our preferred measure of core inflation, which excludes food, energy and trade services, also came in a bit softer than expected –up 0.1%— as transportation & warehousing prices fell. The trend remains upward, however, with the “core-core” measure climbing to 2.9% over the past 12 months versus 1.9% the 12 months prior.
• Input prices eased a bit in August, but are still running ahead of final prices. Pressure on margins therefore looks to continue.

- source Wells Fargo

Additional escalation in the trade war would as we pointed out in various conversations put additional pressure on inflationary trends and on the US consumer we think. The question on everyone's mind is how are we shifting into a new inflationary state meaning that the "Money illusion" is finally fading?

On this subject we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch's take from their Inflation Strategist note from the 13th of September entitled "Signs of life":

"The old normal shows signs of life

• Globalisation delivers a fall in price level masquerading as deflation. Both secular and cyclical deflation forces are fading.
• We update our long list of determinants of the low real rate era. Bernanke's "global savings glut" obviously has a place.

The three big picture inflation supports

Cyclical, secular and survivorship

We can be critical of the different ways output gaps are calculated, the numbers themselves and their usefulness as a single measure for encapsulating spare capacity in economies. Nevertheless, the reduction/elimination of slack that they signal, apart from being encouraging in its own right, should help towards resolving the question over how much of the “lowflation” experienced has been cyclical and how much secular.

Even when it comes to secular, long term trends, these shouldn’t necessarily be misconstrued as meaning a permanent shift to a new inflationary state. Whether it be the deflationary influence of globalization or the internet, to the extent that this means greater competition (so reduced pricing power), then it does perhaps reduce inflationary potential “permanently”.

However, in a shift from closed economies to open economies (globalization) or from weaker price discovery to stronger price discovery (the internet), a large part of the impact on prices is a one-off adjustment in the level not a permanent reduction in the inflation rate. It just looks like the latter because it doesn’t happen all at once. Inflation should firm if the pace of globalization slows.

Chart 2 suggests globalization is at least experiencing a pause. It shows the extraordinary shift in the openness of the global economy since the 60s but a leveling off in the trade share of GDP in recent years. And, as Governor Carney of the BoE has warned, “deglobalization” (an ugly word for an ugly concept) would threaten a meaningful build-up of inflation pressures.

Perhaps the last line of defense for inflation, as measured, is “survivorship bias”. If economies open up to trade with each other, production gravitates to their respective comparative advantages and (in principle) output is boosted and prices fall. In advanced economies, we have become used to falling goods prices. But, as Chart 3 illustrates simply, if goods prices fall and services prices rise steadily over time, then the overall inflation rate will rise because the index weighting for goods will fall, unless the relative price change prompts a consumption shift from services to goods.

Whether it be this “survivorship bias” or the tendency of economies to consume proportionately more services as they advance (and as their populations age), Chart 4 shows the mild but meaningful shift from goods to services in CPI baskets. 

We suggest that perceptions of r*, the neutral real policy rate consistent with growth at trend and inflation at target, have been framed by the experience of a prolonged period of economic slack and an even longer period of globalization. The impacts of both on inflation are probably fading and the real policy rate required to keep inflation pressures in check will likely rise gradually to a considerably higher level than currently priced.

Real rate drivers - the usual suspects

It is worth periodically rounding up the “usual suspects” cited as causes of the low real rate world we have been in. Here we list suggestions from a variety of sources and throw in a few of our own. We do not claim that it is exhaustive and readers would no doubt add and subtract from what we have below.

Thinking in terms of potential longer-dated real rates drivers – those shifting the supply and demand for savings and investment – it is perhaps useful to split them into those drivers that might have shifted the savings curve and those that might have shifted the investments curve.

Most items we list are self-explanatory and we do not want to go over well-trodden ground in a lot of detail before getting to our main contentions. However, some of the drivers we identify should actually be broken-down into arrays of sub-drivers. In particular, we suggest that there are many facets to the apparent change in capital/labour preference that has subdued capital investment, so we carve out a sublist for that driver.

Causes of investment curve shift to the left?

• The long shadow of the crisis – reduced expected real returns, greater uncertainty over those expected returns or greater risk aversion to that uncertainty
• A decline in innovation, reducing opportunities
• The cost of equity capital has fallen, but nothing like as much as the risk free rate.
• Falling prices of investment goods (and inelastic demand).
• Capital/labour substitution – replacing the former with the latter.

Causes of savings curve shift to the right?

• The “Global Savings Glut” (GSG), especially imported savings from reserve accumulators.
• Demographics – a falling dependency ratio. Workers can save more because they are supporting fewer dependents.
• Precautionary savings accumulated because of crisis.
• Rising inequality raising the average propensity to save."  - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We would like to add a couple of comments to the above  relating to the GSG theory put forward by former Fed president Ben Bernanke relating the reasons for the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). Once again we would like to quote our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject:

"The "Savings Glut" view of economists such as Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman needs to be vigorously rebuked. This incorrect view which was put forward to attempt to explain the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) by the main culprits was challenged by economists at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), particularly in one paper by Claudio Borio entitled "The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt?": 
"The core objection to this view is that it arguably conflates “financing” with “saving” –two notions that coincide only in non-monetary economies. Financing is a gross cash-flow concept, and denotes access to purchasing power in the form of an accepted settlement medium (money), including through borrowing. Saving, as defined in the national accounts, is simply income (output) not consumed. Expenditures require financing, not saving. The expression “wall of saving” is, in fact, misleading: saving is more like a “hole” in aggregate expenditures – the hole that makes room for investment to take place. … In fact, the link between saving and credit is very loose. For instance, we saw earlier that during financial booms the credit-to-GDP gap tends to rise substantially. This means that the net change in the credit stock exceeds income by a considerable margin, and hence saving by an even larger one, as saving is only a small portion of that income." - source BIS paper, December 2012

Their paper argues that it was unrestrained extensions of credit and the related creation of money that caused the problem which could have been avoided if interest rates had not been set too low for too long through a "wicksellian" approach dear to Charles Gave from Gavekal Research.

Borio claims that the problem was that bank regulators did nothing to control the credit booms in the financial sector, which they could have done. We know how that ended before." - source Macronomics, February 2016

Indeed, conflating financing and savings is the main issue when it comes to the GSG theory. From a "Wicksellian" perspective, one would argue that low rates for too long leads to mis-allocation of capital. For instance if one looks at CAPEX expenditures in US High Yield since 1997, one can see in the chart below from Bank of America Merrill Lynch that prior to the onset of the GFC, capital raised through bond issuance went into more leverage thanks to a buying spree with Acquisitions/LBOs. Of course a feature of a late credit cycle does lead to seeing more LBOs and acquisitions:

- graphs source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

As we pointed out in our October 2017 long conversation relating  to inflation entitled "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?", we had over-inflation of asset prices and too low inflation thanks to the "Money Illusion". The Fed, subdued inflation expectations and inflation with its various QE iterations. We indicated at the time:

"Credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised

When it comes to credit and in particular the credit cycle, the growth of private credit matters a lot. If indeed there are signs that the US consumer is getting "maxed out", then there is a chance the credit cycle will turn in earnest, because of too much debt being raised as well for the US consumer. But for now financial conditions are still fairly loose. For the credit music to stop, a return of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation would end the rally still going strong towards eleven in true Spinal Tap fashion" - source Macronomics, October 2017

Financial conditions remain very loose and with the fiscal boost coming from the Trump administration, no wonder the Fed is becoming more hawkish. You have been warned. 

But returning to real rate drivers, Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their note highlight what has mattered most for the "Money illusion" to take place:

"What has mattered most?

Over the past ten years, bond market participants would almost certainly cite risk-free bond buying by central bank reserve accumulators and the duration extinguished by quantitative easing, mitigating the impact of heavy government bond supply as the crisis lifted debt/GDP levels.

However, real rates were already in long-term decline well before the crisis. Taking a longer time frame, a Bank of England Working Paper by Lukasz Rachel and Thomas D. Smith (No. 571, “Secular drivers of the global real interest rate”, December 2015) claimed to be able to account for 400 of the 450 basis point fall in long term real interest rates over the preceding thirty years.

Exhibit 1, clipped from their paper, suggests that the global savings glut has only had a small walk-on part in the unfolding real rate drama.

In their analysis, the big four drivers were: lower growth, demographics, an increase in the spreads between risk-free real rates and the real rates experienced in the real economy (including, for instance, the real cost of equity finance), and the falling relative price of capital. For this last to be a driver of lower real rates one must assume that demand for capital goods is price-inelastic.

They concluded that: “most of these forces look set to persist and some may even build further. This suggests that the global neutral rate may remain low and perhaps settle at (or slightly below) 1% in the medium to long run.” In their forecasts, they see demographics delivering most of this increase, as the Exhibit shows. Chart 6 shows how this relates to an end to the downtrend in the world dependency ratio, with upswings well underway in advanced economies.

Later, we will discuss the interaction between risk-aversion, driving the “spreads” component in the Exhibit, and the global savings glut, in order to contend that this can be a force for a bigger upward adjustment in real rates in the future.

The replacement of capital with labour has many aspects

As before, we will list what we see as potential causes of this phenomenon, rather than discuss them in any detail. They should be self-explanatory. We would also stress that the ordering should not be regarded as signalling an attempt to rank them in order of importance.

Drivers of the trend shift from capital to labour

• Increasing labour market flexibility
• A global “labour supply glut”, resulting from:

o A falling dependency ratio
o Globalisation
o A post-crisis workforce that needed to re-skill and price itself back
into work

• A change in firms’ perceived capital-labour risk/cost efficient frontier since the crisis
• Capital intensive goods production has been driven out of advanced economies (their comparative advantage being in services)
• Production reflects consumption. Advanced economies consume fewer goods and more (labour intensive) services
• As a result of the above, the modern advanced economy business is capital-light

Ben Bernanke memorably used the term “global savings glut” to describe excess savings circling the world in pursuit of a return. Admittedly, the world saving rate was a little higher in 2005 (when he coined the term) than now but the overall increase in the world savings rate over time has not been great, while that for the OECD has seen a gentle decline.

The glut that is generally understood to have exerted downward pressure on nominal and real yields refers to the savings recycled from surplus countries to deficit countries as large current account imbalances emerged.

However, there are reasons to be a little uncomfortable with that seemingly axiomatic received wisdom without further elaboration. To the extent that current account surpluses represent the excess savings of countries, there are equal and opposite savings shortfalls in current account deficit countries (notably the US and UK).

Conventional wisdom used to have it that countries with persistent current account deficits needed to pay higher prospective returns to attract and retain foreign capital. Investors have a natural preference for domestic assets, so need to be paid a premium for accepting foreign market risk. Therefore, without any change in global saving, an increase in imbalances would be expected to depress real yields in surplus economies but raise them in economies with savings shortfalls.

Conventional wisdom upended

If the above framework is accepted, then a mild increase in the global saving rate accompanied by the development of large global imbalances would have exerted a downward “income effect” on real yields but an upward “substitution effect” on real yields in economies on the negative side of the global imbalances identity. The net impact on real yields in the US (with the greatest need for imported savings) would have been ambiguous. What has upended this logic has been the change in the risk preferences of the exporters of savings.

When an economy is “self-sufficient” in savings, domestic savers have diverse risk appetites; they invest across the risk spectrum. And when an economy does have a savings shortfall but is financed by foreign private capital, risk appetite also tends to be diverse (FDI, equity portfolio acquisition, etc). Up until the late 90s, this was the norm.

So our contention is that the rise of the reserve accumulators, in pursuit of risk-free government paper, crowded-out risk appetite. The substitution effect became one of increasing risk-free investment appetite surpluses and risk-taking appetite shortfalls. Therefore the nature and sign of the substitution changed.

Chart 9 shows the IMF’s presentation of these global imbalances.

In Chart 10, we regroup and simplify the picture. By unifying European creditors and debtors (which appear above and below the zero line in the IMF layout) we change the outline of the picture a bit.

However, the main thing highlighted by Chart 10 is the surplus share recorded by China and the oil exporters up until the last few years. It’s a major oversimplification, obviously, but these are perhaps the most conspicuous reserve accumulators pursuing risk-free external assets.

But that era appears to be over, insofar as we accept IMF forecasts for the development of imbalances. The present and near future of imbalances looks simpler than the past – Europe will be financing the US.

The flows will be private capital, not public reserves, so have the potential to restore the old regime where a US savings shortfall delivers higher not lower risk-free real rates. This also suggests that even though the spread between US and Euro real rates has widened significantly, there’s more to come.

Was the equity risk premium a casualty of this risk appetite shift?

The BoE working paper discussed earlier discussed widening “spreads” as an important driver of low real rates. No doubt the crisis was a major contributor to a gapping wider in the equity risk premium and a shifting preference towards government bonds will reflect other things, like the aging of the average saver. However, we would suggest that if global imbalances have extinguished risk appetite in the way we have described, then this also played a big part in the late-90s bond-equity “correlation flip” shown in Chart 11 and the widening gap between bond and equity earnings yields.

In this context, the post-millennium US experience of debt-financed equity buybacks (widely pilloried as “short-termism” and “financial alchemy” looks, more objectively, to be a rational response to a dramatic increase in the relative cost of equity finance. It’s been about giving investors what they want.

New normal looking more like old normal than we thought

In this note we have discussed very big picture influences that are likely evolving very slowly. However, the underlying messages seem clear. A closing of the global output gap appears to be coinciding with a waning in the deflationary influence of globalisation, resulting in firming global inflation, or at least a higher r* to keep inflation in check. This would be aggravated if globalisation is actually in retreat.

That a global savings glut depressed risk-free real rates is universally accepted but perhaps the bigger global real yield depressant from global imbalances was the extinguishing of risk appetite – “bad” savings driving out “good” savings. The global imbalances are still with us but the composition is changing in a way that should restore risk appetite and lift US real yields, both outright and (especially) relative to European." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We disagree on the above a GSG was not the reason risk-free rates were depressed, no offense to Bank of America Merrill Lynch but we would rather side with the wise wizards at the BIS than with the reckless wizards such as Ben Bernanke at the Fed and others.

Before we move on to our final charts regarding the "liquidity illusion", we would like to quote the wise words of Irving Fisher from his 1928 book:

"We may now summarize our findings
1. The problem of what to do about our unstable money is one of prime importance
2. It has been all but overlooked because of the Money Illusion
3. This Illusion is the more serious because every man finds it harder to free his mind of this Illusion as to the money of his own country than of foreign money.
4. This Money Illusion so distorts our view that commodities may seem to be rising or falling when they are substantially stationary, wages may seem to be rising when they are really falling, profits may seem to exist when they are really losses, interest may be believed to be rewarding thrift when no real interest exists, income may seem to be steady when it is unsteady, bond investments may seem to be safe when they are merely a speculation in gold. It makes a unit of weight appear to be a unit of value; it hides a chief cause of the so-called business cycle; it has enabled political financiers to employ unsound finance with burdens heavier but with complaints less than if sound finance had been employed; it has led to unjust blame of "profiteers" and of the "money lenders"; and above all it has held back stabilization by concealing the need of it.
5. The present fixity of weight of our dollar is a very poor substitute for a fixity of value or buying power.
6. By actual index number measurement our dollar rose nearly four fold and fell back to the starting point again between 1865 and 1920.
7. Most of the dollar's fluctuations were while the dollar was a gold dollar (1879-1922).
8. They were largely peace time fluctuations; most of them occurred while America was at peace (1879-1898, 1899-1917, and 1918-1922), and much of them when there were no important wars elsewhere (1879-1914 and 1918-1922).
9. These fluctuations through serious shrink into insignificance in comparison with the thousand-fold, million fold, billion-fold, and trillion-fold fluctuations in Europe.
10. The cause of a falling or rising dollar is monetary inflation or deflation and that , in practice, it is seldom or never necessary to specify that the inflation or deflation is merely relative since it is also absolute as well.
11. To go back to the cause of inflation or deflation, the extreme variability of money is chiefly man-made, due to governmental finance, especially war finance, as well as to banking policies and legislation; but also due in part to discoveries or exhaustion in gold mines, and changes in metallurgical art.
12. The tremendous fluctuations of money produce tremendous harm analogous to what would result if our physical yardstick were constantly stretching and shrinking but far greater

• a. because the money yardstick is used so much more generally
• b. because it is so much more used in time contracts, because stretching and shrinking are unseen.

13. This harm includes a constant robbery of Peter to pay Paul - amounting to sixty billion dollars in six years in the United States alone - a net loss to all Peters and Pauls taken together, confusion and uncertainty in all financial, commercial and industrial relations, constituting much what is called the business cycle, producing depression, bankruptcy, unemployment, labor discontent, strikes, lockouts, class feeling, perverted legislation, Bolshevism and violence. In short the harm is threefold: social injustice, discontent and inefficiency." - source Irving Fisher, The Money Illusion.

He also added that credit control must always be an important part of any program for stabilization. This is leading us to our final charts relating to the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets.

• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

As a reminder, a liquidity crisis always lead to a financial crisis. That simple, unfortunately. In our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject we quoted Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis from their 2008 book Credit Crises:

"Asset price inflation in general, is not a phenomenon which is limited to one specific market but rather has a global impact. However, there are some specific developments in certain segments of the market, as specific segments are more vulnerable against overshooting than others. Therefore, a strong decline in asset prices effects on all risky asset classes due to the reduction of liquidity.
This is a very important finding, as it explains the mechanism behind a global crisis. Spillover effects are liquidity-driven and liquidity is a global phenomenon. Against the background of the ongoing integration of the financial markets, spillover effects are inescapable, even in the case there is no fundamental link between specific market segments. How can we explain decoupling between asset classes during financial crises? During the subprime turmoil in 2007, equity markets held up pretty well, although credit markets go hit hard." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

Our final charts come from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Credit Market Liquidity report from the 12th of September and highlights the "buy-side" versus the "sell-side" imbalance after the GFC and seems to be on every credit investors mind these days, rightly so:

"The ECB has been tapering its QE programme, and asset purchases will finish by the end of this year. Credit market liquidity is becoming more challenging with market participants seeing fewer bids when they need them. We think that when bond market liquidity becomes more challenging, the CDS market is the vehicle to manage risk. Bond trading frequencies have slowed down over the past years; trading volumes in the CDS market are rising rapidly, both in the index and the options market.
The “buy-side” vs. “sell-side” imbalance is the largest it has ever been. In a world of growing buy-side assets but lower street liquidity, sharp corrections are more common. Dealer inventories of corporate bonds are clearly way down on where they were in ’07, but banks also appear more nimble in managing their mark-to-market risks and overall exposures on their securities portfolios.

The CSPP has dominated the European credit market in recent years. The ECB has bought more than €167bn of euro-denominated corporate debt (and this is still growing, albeit slowly). The CSPP has been pivotal in improving the credit market’s strength and resilience. But we can see a shift in market liquidity for the worst in recent months amid rising markets volatility.

Liquidity has been challenging according to the findings of our analysis, and credit investors seem to think that it will deteriorate as the buyer of last resort withdraws and they will be the only buyers left in the market (chart 3).

With inflows drying up and possibly continuing to do so as the rates cycle between US and Europe pushes money out of the latter, liquidity will likely become more challenging (more here).

The trend of selling in secondary to participate on primary is the new norm as inflows have stopped. If macro deteriorates further and investors need to replenish their cash balances to cover weaker fund flows technicals, the bid for bonds would weaken more, we think. No wonder that the key concern for credit investors is that “market liquidity evaporates”; the August 2018 survey reading was the highest since H2 2015 heading into the February 2016 sell-off and amid HY market weakness (on the back of a flare-up in the Greek debt saga, EM risks and oil prices tanking).

Our liquidity indicator at the most distressed levels

Arguably it is difficult to quantify liquidity. So many metrics (bid/offer, turnover, volumes and trade counts), but none of these have the ability to measure “illiquidity aversion” and to what extent risk-aversion has dominated the market. We think the volatility market is providing unique and eye opening insight on the current state of the “illiquidity scare” for market participants.

In our Hold your breath for a bumpy ride note, we highlighted an interesting and rather unique phenomenon that recently emerged in the European credit index options market. Amid significant volatility during the Italian BTP sell-off, we have seen an increase in hedging demand. As a result implied vols have moved well above the levels justified by the underlying spread market. But not only that, as not only have vols underperformed (moved more than) the underlying market, but implied vol skews were heavily bid too, steepening to the highest levels we have seen historically (chart 4).

We think we could gain significant insight on risk aversion from examining the correlation between the forward moves of the implied vol skew (payer vs. receiver implied vol differential) vs. the preceded moves in the underlying implied vol market. In simple terms, the higher the correlation the stronger the need for tail hedging going forward post a vol shock in credit. Currently we find that the level of positive correlation (steepening of implied vol skew, post a rise in implied vols) is the highest we have ever seen, according to our data.

In our opinion this clearly reflects the high levels of risk aversion and illiquidity fear during the recent sell-off. It seems that investors hit the “panic” button harder than at any other time in history. A continuation of outflows, a weak macro and declining market liquidity could ultimately push too many investors to the exit." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

It seems that some credit investors are getting wary about the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets and some are already lining up for the exit as no one wants to really pick up the tab of the very large credit punch bowl offered by our "generous gamblers" aka our dear central bankers but we ramble again as we are not there yet and equities continue to surge oblivious to the on-going shift in the "Money Illusion". Oh well...

 “Liquidity is a backward-looking yardstick. If anything, it’s an indicator of potential risk, because in “liquid” markets traders forego trying to determine an asset’s underlying worth – - they trust, instead, on their supposed ability to exit.” - Roger Lowenstein, author of “When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.” – “Corzine Forgot Lessons of Long-Term Capital“

Stay tuned ! 

Macro and Credit - The disappearance of MS München

"Hope, the best comfort of our imperfect condition." - Edward Gibbon, English historian

While thinking about correlations in particular and risk in general, we reminded ourselves of one of our pet subject we have touched in different musings, namely the fascinating destructive effect of "Rogue waves". It is a subject we discussed in details, particularly in our post "Spain surpasses 90's perfect storm":

"We already touched on the subject of "Rogue Waves" in our conversation "the Italian Peregrine soliton", being an analytical solution to the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (which was proposed by Howell Peregrine in 1983), and being as well "an attractive hypothesis" to explain the formation of those waves which have a high amplitude and may appear from nowhere and disappear without a trace, the latest surge in Spanish Nonperforming loans to a record 10.51% and the unfortunate Sandy Hurricane have drawn us towards the analogy of the 1991 "Perfect Storm".
Generally rogues waves require longer time to form, as their growth rate has a power law rather than an exponential one. They also need special conditions to be created such as powerful hurricanes or in the case of Spain, tremendous deflationary forces at play when it comes to the very significant surge in nonperforming loans.", source Macronomics, October 2012

You might already asking yourselves why our title and where we are going with all this?

The MS München was a massive 261.4 m German LASH carrier of the Hapag-Lloyd line that sank with all hands for unknown reasons in a severe storm in December 1978. The most accepted theory is that one or more rogue waves hit the München and damaged her, so that she drifted for 33 hours with a list of 50 degrees without electricity or propulsion.  The München departed the port of Bremerhaven on December 7, 1978, bound for Savannah, Georgia. This was her usual route, and she carried a cargo of steel products stored in 83 lighters and a crew of 28. She also carried a replacement nuclear reactor-vessel head for Combustion Engineering, Inc. This was her 62nd voyage, and took her across the North Atlantic, where a fierce storm had been raging since November. The München had been designed to cope with such conditions, and carried on with her voyage. The exceptional flotation capabilities of the LASH carriers meant that she was widely regarded as being practically unsinkable (like the Titanic...). That was of course until she encountered "non-linear phenomena such as solitons.

While a 12-meter wave in the usual "linear" model would have a breaking force of 6 metric tons per square metre (MT/m2), although modern ships are designed to tolerate a breaking wave of 15 MT/m2, a rogue wave can dwarf both of these figures with a breaking force of 100 MT/m2. Of course for such "freak" phenomenon to occur, you need no doubt special conditions, such as the conjunction of fast rising CDS spreads (high winds), global tightening financial conditions and NIRP (falling pressure towards 940 MB), as well as rising nonperforming loans and defaults (swell). So if you think having a 99% interval of confidence in the calibration of you VaR model will protect you againtst multiple "Rogue Waves", think again...

Of course the astute readers would have already fathomed between the lines that our reference to the giant ship MS München could be somewhat a veiled analogy to banking giant Deutsche Bank. It could well be...

But given our recent commentaries on the state of affairs in the credit space, we thought it would be the right time to reach again for a book collecting dust since 2008 entitled Credit Crisis authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer (which we quoted on numerous occasions on this very blog for good reasons) and Philip Gisdakis.

Before we go into the nitty gritty of our usual ramblings, it is important we think at this juncture to steer you towards chapter 5 entitled "The Anatomy of a Credit Crisis" and take a little detour worth our title analogy to "Rogue Waves" which sealed the fate of MS München. What is of particular interest to us, in similar fashion to the demise of the MS München is page 215 entitled "LTCM: The arbitrage saga" and the issue we have discussing extensively which is our great discomfort with rising positive correlations and large standard deviations move. This amounts to us as increasing rising instability and the potential for "Rogue Waves" to show up in earnest:

"LTCM's trading strategies generally showed no or almost very little correlation. In normal times or even in crises that are limited to a specific segment, LTCM benefited from this high degree of diversification. Nevertheless, the general flight to liquidity in 1998 caused a jump in global risk premiums, hitting the same direction. All (in normal times less-correlated) positions moved in the same direction. Finally, it is all about correlation! Rising correlations reduces the benefit from diversification, in the end hitting the fund's equity directly. This is similar with CDO investments (ie, mezzanine pieces in CDOs), which also suffer from a high (default) correlation between the underlying assets. Consequently, a major lesson of the LTCM crisis was that the underlying Covariance matrix used in Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis is not static but changes over time." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

You might probably understand by now from our recent sailing analogy (The Vasa ship) and wave analogy (The Ninth Wave) where we are heading: A financial crisis is more than brewing. 

It is still time for you to play "defense", although we did warn you well advance of the direction markets would be taking at the end of 2015 and why we bought our "put-call parity" protection (long US long bonds / long gold-gold miners), given that if there is huge volatility in the policy responses of central banks, the option-value of both gold and bonds position would go up (it did...). Although some like it "beta" or more appropriately being "short gamma" such as the "value" proposal embedded in Contingent Convertibles aka CoCos (now making the headlines), we prefer to be "long gamma" but we ramble again...

Moving back to the LTCM VaR reference, the Variance-Covariance Method assumes that returns are normally distributed. In other words, it requires that we estimate only two factors - an expected (or average) return and a standard deviation. Value-at-Risk (VaR) calculates the maximum loss expected (or worst case scenario) on an investment, over a given time period and given a specified degree of confidence. 

LTCM and the VaR issue reminds us of a regular quote we have used, particularly in May 2015 in our conversation "Cushing's syndrome":

"The issue with so many pundits following "similar strategies" and chasing the "same assets" in a growing "illiquid" fixed income world is a Cushing's syndrome impact. Excess stimulants have compressed yield spreads too fast leading to "unhealthy" rapid bond prices gain.
The growing issue with VaR (Value at risk) and bond volatility is that it has risen sharply from a risk management perspective. This could lead to a sell-fulfilling "sell-off" prophecy of having too many pundits looking for the exit as the same time, namely "de-risking".
To that effect and in continuation to Martin Hutchinson's LTCM reference, we would like to repeat the quote used in the conversation "The Unbearable Lightness of Credit":
Today investors face the same "optimism bias" namely that they overstate their ability to exit.

“Liquidity is a backward-looking yardstick. If anything, it’s an indicator of potential risk, because in “liquid” markets traders forego trying to determine an asset’s underlying worth – - they trust, instead, on their supposed ability to exit.” - Roger Lowenstein, author of “When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.” – “Corzine Forgot Lessons of Long-Term Capital“

So what is VaR really measuring these days?

This what we had to say about VaR in our May 2015 conversation "Cushing's syndrome" and ties up nicely to our world of rising positive correlations. Your VaR measure doesn't measure today your maximum loss, but could be only measuring your minimum loss on any given day. Check the recent large standard deviation moves dear readers such as the one on the Japanese yen and ask yourself if we are anymore in a VaR assumed "normal market" conditions:

"On a side note while enjoying a lunch with a quant fund manager friend of ours, we mused around the ineptness of VaR as a risk model. When interviewing fellow quants for a position within his fund, he has always asked the same question: What does VaR measures? He always get the same answer, namely that VaR measures the maximum loss at any point during the period. VaR is like liquidity, it is a backward-looking yardstick. It does not measure your maximum loss at any point during the period but, in today "positively correlated markets" we think it measures your "minimum loss" at any point during the period as it assumes "normal" markets. We are not in "normal" markets anymore rest assured." - source Macronomics, May 2015

Therefore this week's conversation we will look at what positive correlations entails for risk and diversification and also we will look at the difference cause of financial crisis and additional signs we are seriously heading into one like the MS München did back in 1978, like we did in 2008 and like we are most likely heading in 2016 with plenty of menacing "Rogue Waves" on the horizon. So fasten your seat belt for this long conversation, this one is to be left for posterity.

Synopsis:

• Credit - The different types of credit crises and where do we stand
• A couple of illustrations of on-going nonlinear "Rogue Waves" in the financial world of today
• The overshooting phenomenon
• The Yuan Hedge Fund attack through the lense of the Nash Equilibrium Concept

• Credit - The different types of credit crises and where do we stand

Rising positive correlations, are rendering "balanced funds" unbalanced and as a consequence models such as VaR are becoming threatened by this sudden rise in non-linearity as it assumes normal markets. The rise in correlations is a direct threat to diversification, particularly as we move towards a NIRP world:

"When it comes to a macro-driven market as "central banks' put" are losing their "magic", correlations unfortunately are still moving higher, which, we think is a sign of great instability brewing.The correlation between macro variables such as bund yields, FX and oil and equity market factors (Momentum, Value, Growth, Risk) is now higher than the correlation between macro variables and the market. There lies the crux of central banks interventions. There is now deeper inter-linkages in the macro economy as well as financial markets globally post crisis." - source Macronomics, January 2016

When it comes to the classification of credit crises and their potential area of origins both the authors  for the book "Credit Crisis" shed a light on the subject:

• "Currency crisis: A speculative attack on the exchange rate of a currency which results in a sharp devaluation of the currency; or it forces monetary authorities to intervene in currency markets to defend the currency (eg. by sharply hiking interest rates).
• Foreign Debt Crisis: a situation where a country is not able to service its foreign debt.
• Banking crisis: Actual or potential bank runs. Banks start to suspend the internal convertibility of their liabilities or the government has to bail out the banks.
• Systemic Financial crisis: Severe disruptions of the financial system, including a malfunctioning of financial markets, with large adverse effect on the real economy. It may involves a currency crisis and also a banking crisis, although this is not necessarily true the other way around.

In many cases, a crisis is characterized by more than one type, meaning we often see a combination of at least two crises. These involve strong declines in asset values, accompanied by defaults, in the non-financials but also in the financials universe. The effectiveness of government support or even bailout measures combined with the robustness of the economy are the most important determinants of the economy's vulneability, and they therefore have a significant impact on the severity of the crisis. In addition, a crucial factor is obviously the amplitude of asset price inflation that preceded the crisis.

Depending on the type of crisis, there are different warning signals, such as significant current account imbalances (foreign debt crisis), inefficient currency pegs (currency crisis), excessive lending behavior (banking crisis), and a combination of excessive risk taking and asset price inflation (systemic financial crisis). A financial crisis is costly, as they are fiscal costs to restructure the financial system. There is also a tremendous loss from asset devaluation, and there can be a misallocation of resources, which in the end, depresses growth. A banking crisis is considered to be very costly compared with, for example, a currency crisis.

We classify a credit crisis as something between a banking crisis and a systematic financial crisis. A credit crisis affects the banking system or arises in the financial system; the huge importance of credit risk for the functioning of the financial system as a whole bears also a systematic component. The trigger event is often an exogenous shock, while the pre-credit crisis situation is characterized by excessive lending, excessive leverage, excessive risk taking, and lax lending standards. Such crises emerge in periods of very high expectations on economic development, which in turns boosts loan demand and leverage in the system. When an exogenous shock hits the market, it triggers an immediate repricing of the whole spectrum of credit-risky assets, increasing the funding costs of borrowers while causing an immense drop in the asset value of credit portfolios.

A so-called credit crunch scenario is the ugliest outcome of a credit crisis. It is characterized by a sharp reduction of lending activities by the banking sector. A credit crunch has a severe impact on the real economy, as the basic transmission mechanism of liquidity (from central banks over the banking sector to non-financial corporations) is distorted by the fact that banks do a liquidity squeeze, finally resulting in rising default rates. A credit crunch is a full-fledged credit crisis, which includes all major ingredients for a banking and a systemic crisis spilling over onto several parts of the financial market and onto the real economy. A credit crunch is probably the most costly type of financial crisis, also depending on the efficiency of regulatory bodies, the shape of the economy as a whole, and the health of the banking sector itself." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

The exogenous shock started in earnest in mid-2014 which saw a conjunction of factors, a significant rise in the US dollar that triggered the fall in oil prices, the unabated rise in the cost of capital.

If we were to build another schematic of the current market environment, here what we think it should look like to name a few of the issues worth looking at:

- source Macronomics

So if you think diversification is a "solid defense" in a world of "positive correlations", think again, because here what the authors of "Credit Crisis" had to say about LTCM and tail events (Rogue Waves):

"Even if there are arbitrage opportunities in the sense that two positions that trade at different prices right now will definitely converge at a point in the future, there is a risk that the anomaly will become even bigger. However typically a high leverage is used for positions that have a skewed risk-return profile, or a high likelihood of a small profit but a very low risk of a large loss. This equals the risk-and-return profile of credit investments but also the risk that selling far-out-of-the-money puts on equities. In case of a tail event occurs, all risk parameters to manage the overall portfolio are probably worthless, as correlation patterns change dramatically during a crisis. That said, arbitrage trades are not under fire because the crisis has an impact on the long-term-risk-and-return profile of the position. However, a crisis might cause a short-term distortion of capital market leading to immense mark-to-market losses. If the capital adequacy is not strong enough to offset the mark-to-market losses, forced unwinding triggers significant losses in arbitrage portfolios. The same was true for many asset classes during the summer of 2007, when high-quality structures came under pressure, causing significant mark-to-market losses. Many of these structures did not bear default risk but a huge liquidity risk, and therefore many investors were forced to sell." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

You probably understand by now why we have raised the "red flag" so many times on our fear in the rise of "positive correlations". They do scare us, because they entail, larger and larger standard deviation moves and potentially trigger "Rogue Waves" which can wipe out even the biggest and most reputable "Investment ships" à la MS München. 

The big question is not if we are in a bubble again but if this "time it's different". It is not. It's worse, because you have all the four types of crisis evolving at the same time.
Here is what Chapter 5 of "Credit Crisis" is telling us about the causes of the bubble:

"A mainstream argument is that the cause of the bubbles is excessive monetary liquidity in the financial system. Central banks flood the market with liquidity to support economic growth, also triggering rising demand for risky assets, causing both good assets and bad assets to appreciate excessively beyond their fundamentally fair valuation. In the long run, this level is not sustainable, while the trigger of the burst of the bubble is again policy shifts of central banks. The bubble will burst when central banks enter a more restrictive monetary policy, removing excess liquidity and consequently causing investors to get rid of risky assets given the rise in borrowing costs on the back of higher interest rates.

This is the theory, but what about the practice? The resurfacing discussion about rate cuts in the United States and in the Euroland in mid-2005 was accompanied by expectations that inflation will remain subdued. Following this discussion, the impact of inflation on credit spreads returned to the spotlight. An additional topic regarding inflation worth mentioning is that if excess liquidity flows into assets rather than into consumer goods, this argues for low consumer price inflation but rising asset price inflation. In late 2000, the Fed and the European Central Banks (ECB) started down a monetary easing path, which was boosted by external shocks (9/11 and the Enron scandal), when central banks flooded the market with additional liquidity to avoid a credit crunch. Financial markets benefited in general from this excess liquidity, as reflected in the positive performance of almost all asset classes in 2004, 2005, and 2006, which argued for overall liquidity inflows but not for allocation shifts. It is not only excess liquidity held by investors and companies that underpins strong performing assets in general, but also the pro-cyclical nature of banking. In a low default rate environment, lending activities accelerate, which might contribute to an overheating of the economy accompanied by rising inflation. From a purely macroeconomic viewpoint, private households have two alternatives to allocate liquidity: consuming or saving. The former leads to rising price inflation, whereas the latter leads to asset price inflation." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

 Where we slightly differ from the author's take in terms of liquidity allocation is in the definition of "saving".  The "Savings Glut" view of economists such as Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman needs to be vigorously rebuked. This incorrect view which was put forward to attempt to explain the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) by the main culprits was challenged by economists at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), particularly in one paper by Claudio Borio entitled "The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt?". 

"The core objection to this view is that it arguably conflates “financing” with “saving” –two notions that coincide only in non-monetary economies. Financing is a gross cash-flow concept, and denotes access to purchasing power in the form of an accepted settlement medium (money), including through borrowing. Saving, as defined in the national accounts, is simply income (output) not consumed. Expenditures require financing, not saving. The expression “wall of saving” is, in fact, misleading: saving is more like a “hole” in aggregate expenditures – the hole that makes room for investment to take place. … In fact, the link between saving and credit is very loose. For instance, we saw earlier that during financial booms the credit-to-GDP gap tends to rise substantially. This means that the net change in the credit stock exceeds income by a considerable margin, and hence saving by an even larger one, as saving is only a small portion of that income." - source BIS paper, December 2012

Their paper argues that it was unrestrained extensions of credit and the related creation of money that caused the problem which could have been avoided if interest rates had not been set too low for too long through a "wicksellian" approach dear to Charles Gave from Gavekal Research. 

Borio claims that the problem was that bank regulators did nothing to control the credit booms in the financial sector, which they could have done. We know how that ended before.

But, guess what: We have the same problem today and suprise, it's worse.

Look at the issuance levels reached in recent years and the amount of cov-lite loans issued (again...). Look at mis-allocation of capital in the Energy sector and its CAPEX bubble.

Look at the $9 trillion debt issued by Emerging Markets Corporates.

We could go on and on.

Now the credit Fed induced credit bubble is bursting again. One only has to look at what is happening in credit markets (à la 2007). By the way Financial Conditions are tightening globally and the process has started in mid 2014. CCC companies are now shut out of primary markets and default rates will spike. Credit always lead equities...The "savings glut" theory of Ben Bernanke and the FED is hogwash:

"Asset price inflation in general, is not a phenomenon which is limited to one specific market but rather has a global impact. However, there are some specific developments in certain segments of the market, as specific segments are more vulnerable against overshooting than others. Therefore, a strong decline in asset prices effects on all risky asset classes due to the reduction of liquidity.
This is a very important finding, as it explains the mechanism behind a global crisis. Spillover effects are liquidity-driven and liquidity is a global phenomenon. Against the background of the ongoing integration of the financial markets, spillover effects are inescapable, even in the case there is no fundamental link between specific market segments. How can we explain decoupling between asset classes during financial crises? During the subprime turmoil in 2007, equity markets held up pretty well, although credit markets go hit hard." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

As a reminder, a liquidity crisis always lead to a financial crisis. That simple, unfortunately.

This brings us to lead you towards some illustration of rising instability and worrying price action and the formation of "Rogue Waves" we have been witnessing as of late in many segments of the credit markets.

• A couple of illustrations of on-going nonlinear "Rogue Waves" in the financial world of today

Rogue waves present considerable danger for several reasons: they are rare, unpredictable, may appear suddenly or without warning, and can impact with tremendous force. Looking at the meteoric rise in US High yield spreads in the Energy sector is an illustration we think about the destructive power of a High Yield "Rogue Wave":

- source Thomson Reuters Datastream (H/T Eric Burroughs on Twitter)

When it comes to the "short gamma" investor crowd and with Contingent Convertibles aka "CoCos" making the headlines, the velocity in the explosion of spreads has been staggering:

- graph source Barclays (H/T TraderStef on Twitter)

When it comes to the unfortunate truth about wider spreads, what the flattening of German banking giant Deutsche bank is telling you is that it's cost of capital is going up, this is what a flattening of credit curve is telling you:

- source Thomson Reuters Datastream (H/T Eric Burroughs on Twitter)

Also the percentage of High Yield bonds trading at Distressed levels is at the highest level since 2009 according to S&P data:

2015: 20.1%*
2013: 11.2%
2011: 16.8%
2009: 23.2%
- source H/T - Lawrence McDonald - Twitter feed

In our book a flattening of the High Yield curve is a cause for concern as illustrated by the one year point move on the US CDS index CDX HY (High Yield) series 25:

- source CMA part of S&P Capital IQ

This is a sign that cost of capital is steadily going up. Also the basis being the difference between the index and the single names continues to be as wide as it was during the GFC. A basis going deeper into negative territory is a main sign of stress.

We have told you recently we have been tracking the price action in the Credit Markets and particularly in the CMBS space. What we are seeing is not good news to say the least and is a stark reminder of what we saw unfold back in 2007. On that subject we would like to highlight Bank of America Merrill Lynch's CMBS weekly note from the 12th of February entitled "The unfortunate truth about wider spreads":

"Key takeaways
• We anticipate that spread volatility, liquidity stress and credit tightening will persist. Look for wider conduit spreads.
• While CMBX.BBB- tranche prices fell sharply this week we think further downside exists, particularly in series 6&7.

As investors ponder the likelihood that economic growth may slow and that CRE prices may have risen too quickly (Chart 3), recent CMBX price action indicates that a growing number of investors may have begun to short it since it is a liquid, levered way to voice the opinion that CRE is considered to be a good proxy for the state of the economy.

In the past, this type of activity began by investors shorting tranches that were most highly levered to a deteriorating economy and could fall the most if fundamentals eroded. This includes the lower rated tranches of CMBX.6-8, which, as of last night’s close, have seen the prices for their respective BBB-minus and BB tranches fall by 13-17 points for CMBX.6 (Chart 4), 14-20 points for CMBX.7 (Chart 5) and 17-19 points for CMBX.8 (Chart 6) since the beginning of the year.

We agree that underwriting standards loosened over the past few years, which, all else equal, could imply loans in CMBX.8 have worse credit metrics compared to either the CMBX.6 or CMBX.7 series. Despite this, and although prices have already fallen considerably, for several reasons we think it makes sense to short the BBBminus tranche from either CMBX.6 or CMBX.7 instead of the CMBX.8. First, the dollar price of the BBB-minus tranche from CMBX.6 and CMBX.7 is materially higher that of CMBX.8 (Chart 7). 

Additionally, although the CMBX.8 does have more loans with IO exposure than series 6 or 7 do, we think this becomes more meaningful when considering maturity defaults. By contrast, the earlier series not only have lower subordination attachment points at the BBB-minus tranche, but they also have more exposure to the retail sector, which could realize faster fundamental deterioration if the economy does contract." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Now having read seen the movie "The Big Short" and also read the book and also recently read in Bloomberg about Hedge Fund pundits thinking about shorting Subprime Auto-Loans, as the next new "big kahuna" trade, we would like to make another suggestion.  If you want to make it big, here is what we suggest à la "Big Short", given last week we mentioned that Italian NPLs have now been bundled up into a new variety of CDOs according to Euromoney's article entitled "Italy's bad bad bank" from February 2016 and that the Italian state guarantees the senior debt of such operations and thinks it is unlikely ever to have to honour the guarantee (as equity and subordinated debt tranches will take the first hit from any shortfall to the price the SPV paid for the loans), maybe you want to find someone stupid enough to sell you protection on the senior tranche of these "new CDOs". In essence, like in the "Big Short", if the whole of the capital structure falls apart, your wager might make a bigger return because of the assumed low probability of such a "tail risk" to ever materialize. and will be cheaper to implement in terms of negative carry than, placing a bet on the lower part of the capital structure. This is just a thought of course...

Moving back to the disintegration of the CMBS space, Bank of America Merrill Lynch made some additional interesting points on the fate of SEARS and CMBS:

"To this point, Sears’s management announced this week that revenues for the year ending January 31, 2016, decreased to about $25.1 billion (Chart 8) and that the company would accelerate the pace of store closings, sell assets and cut costs.

Why could CMBX.6 be more negatively impacted by the negative Sears news than some of the other CMBX series? Among the more recently issued CMBX series (6-9), CMBX.6 has the highest percentage of retail exposure. When we focus solely on CMBX.6 and CMBX.7, which have the highest percentage exposure to retail among the postcrisis series, we see that although the headline exposure to retail properties is similar, CMBX.6 has considerably more exposure to B/C quality malls than CMBX.7 does" - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Sorry to be a credit "party spoiler" but if U.S. Retail Sales are really showing a reassuring rebound in January according to some pundits with Core sales were 0.6% higher after declining 0.3% in December and the best rise since last May, according to official data from the Commerce Department, then, we wonder what's all our fuss about CMBS price action and SEARS dwindling earnings? Have we lost the plot?

Not really this is all part of what is known as the overshooting phenomenon.

• The overshooting phenomenon

The overshooting phenomenon is closely related to the bubble theory we have discussed earlier on through the comments of both authors of the book "Credit Crisis. The overshooting paper  mentioned below in the book is of great interest as it was written by Rudi Dornbusch, a German economist who worked for most of his career in the United States, who also happened to have had Paul Krugman and Kenneth Rogoff as students:

"Closely linked to the bubble theory, Rudiger Dornbusch's famous overshooting paper set a milestone for explaining "irrational" exchange rate swings and shed some light on the mechanism behind currency crises. This paper is one of the most influential papers writtten in the field of international economics, while it marks the birth of modern international macroeconomics. Can we apply some of the ideas to credit markets? The major input from the Dornbusch model is not only to better understand exchange rate moves; it also provides a framework for policymakers. This allow us to review the policy actions we have seen during the subprime turmoil of 2007.

The background of the model is the transition from fix to flexible exchange rates, while changes in exchange rates did not simply follow the inflation differentials as previous theories suggest. On the contrary, they proved more volatile than most experts expected they would be. Dornsbusch explained this behavior of exchange rates with sticky prices and an instable monetary policy, showing that overshooting of exchange rates is not necessarily linked to irrational behavior of investors ("herding"). Volatility in FX markets is a necessary adjustment path towards a new equilibrium in the market as a response to exogenous shocks, as the price of adjustment in the domestic markets is too slow.

The basic idea behind the overshooting model is based on two major assumptions. First, the "uncovered interest parity" holds. Assuming that domestic and foreign bonds are perfect substitutes, while international capital is fully mobile (and capital markets are fully integrated), two bonds (a domestic and a foreign one) can only pay different interest rates if investors expect compensating movement in exchange rates. Moreover, the home country is small in world capital markets, which means that the foreign interest rate can be taken as exogenous. The model assumes "perfect foresight", which argues against traditional bubble theory. The second major equation in the model is the domestic demand for money. Higher interest rates trigger rising opportunity costs of holding money, and hence lower demand for money. In the contrary, an increase in output raises  demand for money while demand for money is proportional to the price level. 

In order to explain what overshooting means in this context, we have to introduce additional assumptions. First of all, domestic prices do not immediately follow any impulses from the monetary side, while they adjust only slower over time, which is a very realistic assumption. Moreover, output is assumed to be exogenous, while in the long run, a permanent rise in money supply causes a proportional rise in prices and in exchange rates. The exogenous shock to the system is now defined as unexpected permanent increase in money supply, while prices are sticky in the short term. And as also output is fixed, interest rates (on domestic bonds) have to fall to equilibrate the system. As interest-rate parity holds, interest rates can only fall if the domestic currency is expected to appreciate. As the assumption of the model is that in the long run rising money supply must be accompanied by a proportional depreciation in the exchange rate must be larger than the long term depreciation! That said the exchange rate must overshoot the long-term equilibrium level. The idea of sticky prices is in the current macroeconomic discussion fully accepted, as it is a necessary assumption to explain many real-world data.

This is exactly what we need to explain the link to the credit market. The basic assumption of the majority of buy-and-hold investors is that credit spreads are mean reverting. Ignoring default risk, spreads are moving around their fair value through the cycle. Overshooting is only a short-term phenomenon and it can be seen as a buying opportunity rather than the establishment of a lasting trend. This is true, but one should not forget that this is only true if we ignore default risk. This might be a calamitous assumption. Transferring this logic to the first subprime shock in 2007, it is exactly what happened as an initial reaction regarding structured credit investments. For example, investment banks booked structured credit investments in marked-to-model buckets (Level 3 accounting) to avoid mark-to-market losses.  

... 

A credit crisis can be the trigger point of overshooting in other markets. This is exactly what we have observed during the subprime turmoil of 2007.
This is a crucial point, especially from the perspective of monetary policy makers. Providing additional liquidity would mean that there will be further distortions. Healing a credit crunch at the cost of overshooting in other markets. Consequently liquidity injections can be understood as a final hope rather than the "silver bullet" in combating crises. In the context of the overshooting approach, liquidity injections could help to limit some direct effects from credit crises, but they will definitely trigger spillover effects onto other markets. In the end, the efficiency of liquidity injections by central banks depends on the benefit on the credit side compared to the cost in other markets. In any case, it proved not to be the appropriate instrument as a reaction to the subprime crisis in 2007" - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

On that subject we would like to highlight again Bank of America Merrill Lynch's CMBS weekly note from the 12th of February entitled "The unfortunate truth about wider spreads":

"As spreads widened over the past few weeks, a significant number of conversations we’ve had with investors have revolved around the concern that the recent spread widening may not represent a transient opportunity to add risk at wider levels, but instead could represent a new reality earmarked by tighter credit standards, lower liquidity and higher required returns for a given level of risk. While it may be easy to look at CRE fundamentals and dismiss the recent spread widening as being due to market technicals, it is important to realize that while that may be true today, if investors are pricing in what they expect could occur in the future, there may be some validity to the recent spread moves. As a case in point, given the recent new issue CMBS spread widening, breakeven whole loan spreads have widened substantially over the past two months (Chart 16).

Not only do wider whole loan breakeven spreads result in higher coupons to CMBS borrowers, which, effectively tightens credit standards, but it also can reduce the profitability of CMBS originators, which may cause some of them to exit the business. As a case in point, this week Redwood Trust, Inc. announced it is repositioning its commercial business to focus solely on investing activities and will discontinue commercial loan originations for CMBS distribution. Marty Hughes, the CEO of Redwood said:

"We have concluded that the challenging market conditions our CMBS conduit has faced over the past few quarters are worsening and are not likely to improve for the foreseeable future. The escalation in the risks to both source and distribute loans through CMBS, as well as the diminished economic opportunity for this activity, no longer make our commercial conduit activities an accretive use of capital." 

If, as we wrote last week, CRE portfolio lenders also tighten credit standards, it stands to reason that some proportion of borrowers that would have previously been able to successfully refinance may no longer be able to do so. The upshot is that it appears that we have entered into a phase where it becomes increasingly possible that negative market technicals and less credit availability form a feedback loop that negatively affects CRE fundamentals.
To this point, although a continued influx of foreign capital into trophy assets in gateway markets can support CRE prices in certain locations, it won’t help CRE prices for properties located in many secondary or tertiary markets. If borrowers with “average” quality properties located away from gateway markets are faced with higher borrowing costs and more stringent underwriting standards, the result may be fewer available proceeds and wider cap rates." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

This is another sign that credit will no doubt overshoot to the wide side and that you will, rest assured see more spillover in other asset classes. Given credit leads equities, you can expect equities to trade "lower" for "longer" we think.

Furthermore, Janet Yellen's recent performance is confirming indeed the significant weakening of the Fed "put" as described in Bank of America Merrill Lynch's note:

"With Fed Chair Yellen’s Humphry Hawkins testimony, in which she stressed the notion that the Fed’s decision to raise rates is not on a predetermined course, the probability that the Fed would raise interest rates at its March 2016 plummeted as did the probability of rate hikes over the next year. During her testimony, however, the Fed Chair mentioned that the current global turmoil could cause the Fed to alter the timing of upcoming rate hikes, not abandon them. 

As a result, risky asset prices broadly fell and a flight to quality ensued due to the uncertainty of the timing of future rate hikes, the notion that the Fed put may be further out of the money than was previously anticipated and the prospect that a growing policy divergence among global central banks could contribute to a U.S. recession. While delaying the next rate hike may be viewed positively in the sense that it could help keep risk free rates low, which would allow a greater number of borrowers to either refinance or acquire new properties, we think it is likely that many investors will view it as a canary in the coalmine that presages slower economic growth, more capital market volatility, wider credit spreads and lower asset prices.
Ultimately, the framework that has been put in place by regulators over the past few years effectively severely limits banks’ collective abilities to provide liquidity during periods of stress. As global economic concerns have increased, investors and dealers alike have become increasingly aware of the extremely limited amount of liquidityavailable, which has manifested through a surge  in liquidity stress measures (Chart 21) and wider spreads across risky asset classes.

 - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

When it comes to rising risk, it certainly looks to us through the "credit lense" that indeed it certainly feels like 2007 and that once again we are heading towards a Great Financial Crisis version 2.0. For us, it's a given.
When it comes to the much talked about Kyle Bass significant "short yuan" case, we would like to offer our views through the lens of the Nash Equilibrium Concept in our next point.

• The Yuan Hedge Fund attack through the lense of the Nash Equilibrium Concept

Hyman Capital’s Kyle Bass  has recently commented on the $34 trillion experiment and his significant currency play against the Chinese currency (a typical old school Soros type of play we think).

Indirectly, our HKD peg break idea which  we discussed back in September t2015 our conversation "HKD thoughts - Strongest USD peg in the world...or most convex macro hedge?", we indicated that the continued buying pressure on the HKD had led the Hong-Kong Monetary Authority to continue to intervene to support its peg against the US dollar. At the time, we argued that the pressure to devalue the Hong-Kong Dollar was going to increase, particularly due to the loss of competitivity of Hong-Kong versus its peers and in particular Japan, which has seen many Chinese turning out in flocks in Japan thanks to the weaker Japanese Yen. This Yuan trade is of interest to us as we won the "best prediction" from Saxo Bank community in their latest Outrageous Predictions for 2016 with our call for a break in the HKD currency peg as per our September conversation and with the additional points made in our recent "Cinderella's golden carriage".

We also read with interest Saxo Bank's French economist Christopher Dembik's take on the Yuan in his post "The Chinese yuan countdown is on".

Overall, we think that if the Yuan goes, so could the Hong Dollar peg. Therefore we would like again to quote once again the two authors of the book "Credit Crisis" and their Nash Equilibrium reasoning in order to substantiate the probability of this bet paying off:

"Financial panic models are based on the idea of a principle-agent: There is a government which is willing to maintain the current exchange rate using its currency reserves. Investors or speculators are building expectations regarding the ability of the government to maintain the current exchange-rate level. An as answer to a speculative attack on the currency, the government will buy its own currency using its currency reserves. There are three possible outcomes in this situation. First, currency reserves are big enough to combat the speculative attack successfully, and the government is able to keep the current exchange rate. In this case there will be no attack as speculators are rational and able to anticipate the outcome. Second, the reserves of central banks are not large enough to successfully avert the speculative attack, even if only one speculator is starting the attack. Thus, the attack will occur and will be successful. The government has to adjust the exchange rate. Third, the attack will only be successful if speculators join forces and start to attack the currency simultaneously. In this case, there are two possible equilibriums, a "good one" and a "bad one". The good one means the government is able to defend the currency peg, while the bad one means that the speculators are able to force the government to adjust the exchange rate. In this simple approach, the amount of currency reserves is obviously the crucial parameter to determine the outcome, as a low reserve leads to a speculative attack while a high reserve prevents attacks. However, the case of medium reserves, in which a concerted action of speculators is needed is the most interesting case. In this case, there are two equilibriums (based on the concept of the Nash equilibrium): independent from the fundamental environment, both outcomes are possible. If both speculators believe in the success of the attack, and consequently both attack the currency, the government has to abandon the currency peg. The speculative attack would be self-fulfilling. If at least one speculator does not believe in the success, the attack (if there is one) will not be successful. Again, this outcome is also self-fulfilling. Both outcomes are equivalent in the sense of our basic equilibrium assumption (Nash). It also means that the success of an attack depends not only on the currency reserves of the government, but also on the assumption what the other speculator is doing. This is interesting idea behind this concept: A speculative attack can happen independent from the fundamental situation. In this framework, any policy actions which refer to fundamentals are not the appropriate tool to avoid a crisis. " - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

If indeed the amount of currency reserves is obviously the crucial parameter when it comes to assessing the pay off for the Yuan bet, we have to agree with Deutsche Bank recent House View note from the 9th of February 2016 entitled "Still deep in the woods" that problems in China remains unresolved:

"The absence of new news has helped divert attention away from China – but the underlying problem remains unresolved

• After surprise devaluation in early January, China has stopped being a source of new bad news
• Currency stable since, though authorities no longer taking cues from market close to set yuan level*
• Macro data soft as expected, pointing to a gradual deceleration not a sharp slowdown
• Underlying issue of an overvalued yuan remains unresolved, current policy unsustainable long-term

−At over 2x nominal GDP growth, credit growth remains too high
−FX intervention to counter capital outflows – at the expense of foreign reserves

- source Deutsche Bank

When it comes to the risk of a currency crisis breaking and the Yuan devaluation happening, as posited by the Nash Equilibrium Concept, it all depends on the willingness of the speculators rather than the fundamentals as the Yuan attacks could indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making.

This self-fulfilling process is as well a major feature of credit crises and a prominent feature of credit markets (CDS) as posited again in Chapter 5 of the book from Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis:

"Self-fulfilling processes are a major characteristics of credit crises and we can learn a lot from the idea presented above. The self-fulfilling process of a credit crisis is that short-term overshooting might end up in a long-lasting credit crunch - assuming that spreads jump initially above the level that we would consider "fundamentally justified; for instance reflected in the current expected loss assumption. That said, the implied default rate is by far higher than the current one (e.g., the current forecast of the future default rate from rating agencies or from market participants in general). However the longer the spreads remains at an "overshooting level", the higher the risk that lower quality companies will encounter funding problems, as liquidity becomes more expensive for them. this can ultimately cause rising default rate at the beginning of the crisis; a majority of market participants refer to it as short-term overshooting. Self fulfilling processes are major threat in a credit crisis, as was also the case during the subprime meltdown. If investors think that higher default rates are justified, they can trigger rising default rates just by selling credit-risky assets and causing wider spreads. This is independent from what we could call the fundamentally justified level!

The other interesting point is that the assumption of concerted action is not necessary in credit markets to trigger a severe action. If we translate the role of the government (defending a currency peg) into credit markets, we can define a company facing some aggressive investors who can send the company into default. Buying protection on an issuer via Credit Default Swaps (CDS) leads to wider credit spreads of the company, which can be seen as an impulse for the self-fulfilling process described above. If some players are forced to hedge their exposure against a company by buying protection on the name, the same mechanism might be put to work." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

As we highlighted above with the flattening of MS München and/or Deutsche Bank and the flattening of the CDX HY curve, the flattening trend means that the funding costs for many companies is rising across all maturities:

"Such a technically driven concerted action of many players, consequently can also cause an impulse for a crisis scenario, as in the case for currency markets in financial panic models" - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

So there you go, you probably understand by now the disappearance of MS München due to a conjunction of "Rogue Waves":

"The laws of probability, so true in general, so fallacious in particular." - Edward Gibbon, English historian

And this dear readers is the story of VaR in a world of rising "positive correlations" but we are ranting again...

Stay tuned!