Macro and Credit - Empire Days

"No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself." - Pythagoras

Looking at the misery inflicted to battered German banking giant Deutsche Banks, emerging art getting trounced and the collectible car markets getting frothy (as we predicted back in July in our conversation "Who's Afraid of the Noise of Art?") , with luxury watches sales continuing to be under pressure in Asia, in conjunction with sabers rattling in the unresolved Syria situation and a tense election period in the United States with nationalist pressure on the rise globally, we reminded ourselves of this week title analogy of cold wave French-British group The Opposition's 1985 best album Empire Days. More and more we are convinced than the "statu quo" is failing and as we pointed out in our November 2014 "Chekhov's gun" the 30's model could be the outcome:

"Our take on QE in Europe can be summarized as follows: 

Current European equation: QE + austerity = road to growth disillusion/social tensions, but ironically, still short-term road to heaven for financial assets (goldilocks period for credit)…before the inevitable longer-term violent social wake-up calls (populist parties access to power, rise of protectionism, the 30’s model…). 

“Hopeful” equation: QE + fiscal boost/Investment push/reform mix = better odds of self-sustaining economic model / preservation of social cohesion. Less short-term fuel for financial assets, but a safer road longer-term?
Of course our "Hopeful" equation has a very low probability of success given the "whatever it takes" moment from our "Generous Gambler" aka Mario Draghi which has in some instance "postponed" for some, the urgent need for reforms, as indicated by the complete lack of structural reforms in France thanks to the budgetary benefits coming from lower interest charges in the French budget, once again based on phony growth outlook (+1% for 2015)" - source Macronomics November 2014

It seems to us increasingly probable that we will get to the inevitable longer-term violent social wake-up calls (populist parties access to power, rise of protectionism, the 30’s model…) hence the reason for our title analogy as previous colonial empire days were counted, so are the days of banking empires and political "statu quo" hence our continuous "pre-revolutionary" mindset as we feel there is more political troubles brewing ahead of us.

On a side note, while discussing the US elections outcome with some friends and there "Optimism bias" we reminded them our take on the subject around the time of the Brexit results and our contrarian stance which was indeed prescient:

"While assisting in Paris to the "Brexit conference" set up by our friends at Saxo Bank, one of the members of the audience during the Q&A session pointed out the "accuracy" of the bookmakers for the remain to "prevail". We could not resist but intervene to rebuke that statement by using as an illustration how bookmakers got it so wrong when offering 5000/1 odds at the beginning of the season for FC Leicester to clinch the British football Premier League and still having the odds at 500/1 around October. The biggest liabilities for the bookmakers were accrued at around 100-1 to 500-1. To quote Mike Tyson: "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth". Since that "FC Leicester punch" the longest odds that can now be placed on any event will be 1,000-1 to ensure that the betting company Ladbrokes is less exposed in future to 'black swan' events. We reminded also the Saxo crowd the Nash equilibrium concept, us playing on this occasion the "Devil's advocate". In fact not a single time did the bookmakers anticipated a victory for "Brexit" yet another display of the "Optimism bias"" - source Macronomics, June 2016

To that effect we argued with our friends about how irrelevant the results of the first television confrontation between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump were and how low were their predictive nature when it comes to finding out about the potential "outcome" of the upcoming US elections. Therefore, given we like to put our money where our mouth is and our  long standing contrarian stance, we decided this time around to place a "friendly" bet with our friends as we argued that Donald Trump has a much higher probability of getting elected (in similar fashion to the "Brexit" base case) as the Mainstream Media (MSM) would like to "spin it". To that effect we bet on a nice bottle of wine for the winner, two friends deciding to take us on so that it's a nice 2 versus 1 situation for the time being.

But, when it comes to our analogy and this week's conversation, whereas everyone and their dog are focusing on Deutsche Bank, we would like to steer our attention to what lies beneath, namely, a dollar squeeze of epic proportion as we mused in our conversation "Singin' in the Rain" back in 2013:

"Why are we feeling rather nervous?
If the Fed starts draining liquidity, some "big whales" might turn up belly up. Could it be Chinese banks defaulting? Emerging Markets countries defaulting as well due to lack of access to US dollars?
It is a possibility we fathom." - Macronomics - June 2013

It might be that indeed "Deutsche Bank is one of these "big whales" turning belly up, there are indeed increasing signs in Asia and Europe that point to caution given Euro/dollar 3-month FX basis swap widest in 4 years on Deutsche Bank's troubles (-62 basis points). There is something nasty lurking we think. In similar fashion to 2011, regardless of the liquidity provided by the ECB, a widening of Euro/dollar basis swap should always be taken seriously.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Deutsche Bank woes is the tree hiding the forest of dollar illiquidity
• Macro and Credit  - Loan growth under NIRP - The case of Japan
• Final chart: Market’s growing dependence on central bank stimulus means more 
  prone to “corrections”

• Macro and Credit - Deutsche Bank woes is the tree hiding the forest of dollar illiquidity

Back in 2011, increasing bank stress during the summer led not only to a widening of credit spreads but as well to a significant widening of Euro/dollar FX basis swap. To that effect, dollar illiquidity was manifesting itself in the FX basis swap market as well as in the CDS space with the European financial sector credit spreads significantly widening until the launched at the end of 2011 of LTROs by the ECB which was followed by the establishment of swap lines between the Fed and the ECB. Many pundits are pointing towards the upcoming reform for Money Market funds in the US as the prime culprit for this impressive spike in the Euro/dollar FX basis swap market. We think there is more to it as per our 2013 worries. As shown by the BIS in its latest quarterly report released this month, "ultra-loose monetary policies" have increased global dollar shortage. The "crowding out" effect from lower yielding Euro denominated assets is pushing investors towards the US dollar in drove such as Japanese Life Insurers as we have shown in various musings. Also we argued in our July conversation "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" that Bondzilla, the NIRP monster is more and more "made in Japan" as for Japanese Lifers, US assets remain preferred. Therefore there is a potential "crowding-out" effect we are seeing with rising yields in Europe with an acceleration of their allocation towards the US meaning effectively additional demand for US denominated assets and rising costs for hedging FX exposure. Remember you need to follow "Japanese flows" as they matter a lot.

So when it comes to Deutsche Banks woes and the attention it is garnering, to paraphrase our Rcube friends, when everyone is thinking alike, no one is really thinking. As a reminder, under the zero lower bound (ZLB), monetary policy isn’t just about the price of money, but also its quantity. When it comes to quantity, the surge of the significant Euro/dollar FX basis swap market is displaying in earnest, a dollar shortage. 

"When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger." - Confucius

To that effect, rather to continue musing on European banking woes, deleveraging and "Japanification" this week given we have long been touching on these issues in numerous conversations, to paraphrase Confucius, we would rather steer you towards the moon, namely issues brewing in Asia in general and China in particular. As of late was as caught our interest is the acceleration of ebt-equity-swaps (DES) and defaults in China as reported by Nomura in their note from the 20th of September entitled "Both DES and defaults likely accelerated":

"According to local media today (Caixin, 20 September), the first debt-equity swap (DES) in this round (vs the c.RMB400bn DES in 99s) has been approved, in which half of Sino Steel’s RMB60bn debt could be converted into a six-year convertible bond (ie, c.RMB30bn), while the other half remains debt at a relatively low interest rate, likely at a discount vs the one-year benchmark loan rate of 4.35% pa. For the c.RMB30bn CB, according to the same news article, the first three years would see no conversion, and the conversion would come in the fourth year at the pace of 30/30/40% until the sixth year. 

Meanwhile, Guangxi Non-Ferrous Metals announced its bankruptcy per court release on 19 September, being the first on China’s interbank bond market. On the same day, Dongbei Special Steel also announced a potential default due 24 September, the latest warning after a series of bond defaults. 

The DES ratio reportedly is up to the cash flow coverage of relevant debt, thus it varies for different banks 

Sino Steel has faced default risks since 2014 and the regulators called a meeting to resolve the company’s debt issue, which was chaired by BOC as per the news article above. The debt restructuring plan was finalised early this year, and now reportedly the DES has been approved for implementation. 

Despite an overall c.50% DES ratio for the entire debt of RMB60bn for the Sino Steel group and its subsidiaries, this swap ratio varies according to individual banks, given that cash flow coverage over individual banks’ debt exposure differs, per the media coverage. It seems that loans well covered by collateral and/or cash flow of projects would remain as debt, and it is those loans primarily on credit or guarantee and not covered by cash flow that might be swapped into CB. Capital injections from SASAC were also expected in future, according to the media coverage. 

If the reports are accurate, DES through CB puts less pressure on banks’ capital and they could avoid material write-downs upfront; though debt burden remains in short-to-medium term 

DES triggers concerns over banks’ capital pressure, given that equity investments carry 400-1,250% risk weight vs 100% of loans (see DES: Trade-off between capital and provision, 6 April), and the swap through CB could likely alleviate banks’ capital pressure in the short to medium term, although in the long term capital pressure remains if such investments cannot be disposed of in a timely manner. 

Meanwhile, direct DES of potential bad debt requires either a bailout (like the DES in 1999-2003, Fig. 1) or material write-downs upfront.

Since a bailout for DES has been ruled out this time (Re-rating may start as defaults accelerate, 21 July), banks conducting DES may face material write-downs upfront if the loans convert into equity directly. DES through CB could have given banks more time vs direct swap into equity, and thus could facilitate progress.
For a company involved in DES, however, debt burden likely remains before equity conversion, and when conversion starts, it seems to be selective (eg, just the credit/guaranteed loans, with no underlying cash flow for Sino Steel). 

Reiterate our estimate of limited-scale DES this round 

With a full government bailout, the last round of DES digested c.RMB400bn in NPLs (non-performing loans) from banks, equivalent to c.30% of RMB1.4trn NPLs sold to AMCs (asset management companies) at par value. This time around, we see no government bailout, which makes DES a less attractive option both for banks and for companies, in our view. DES through CB may increase the feasibility of the swap, but long-term capital pressure remains for banks and debt burden remains for companies in the short to medium-term, as analysed above. We reiterate our view that DES is one of the options for NPL digestion in this credit cycle, but it is unlikely to be a primary tool for banks, compared with measures of cash collection, write-offs and sales to AMCs. 

Bond defaults expected to accelerate 

Compared to bank loans, the bond market is seeing a normalisation of risks, with this first bankruptcy case coming through on the interbank bond market today. We still see c.RMB50bn bonds on the watch list, all of which are bonds that have announced defaults but are still trying to work out repayment plans to avoid ultimate defaults, including Dongbei Special Steel as mentioned above. We believe that defaults are positive for the risk normalisation in the bond market, which we hope could lead to better risk pricing and higher liquidity efficiency. 

We see a change in the landscape, though we are cautious, with volatilities likely coming through as well 

As banks turn risk-off in 2Q16, DES were launched to start addressing the SOE debt issue (and may be a prelude to other more marketised deleveraging measures in future), as well as risk normalising on the bond market, we see the landscape change discussed in our 2016 outlook (see Changing the playbook in 2016, 2 November 2015) happening. However, fundamental volatilities may come together in this structural change, and we recommend booking profits on vulnerable banks, like mid-caps. In comparison, ICBC (1398 HK, Buy) remains our top pick, given its tighter risk control and stronger loss-absorbing capacity with decent capital ratios (12.5% CET1 by 1H16). CCB (939 HK, Buy) is the other fundamental pick, for similar reasons (13.0% CET1 by 1H16)." - source Nomura

Whereas prompt restructuring is a welcome feature when dealing with nonperforming loans (NPLs), as posited by Nomura, long term capital pressures will remain. Furthermore, the significant surge in Chinese property prices leading to many pundits talking about a large bubble, means that China needs no doubt to rein in credit growth at the time where credit continues to outpace nominal GDP growth!

Yet in another important report published as well by Nomura, it shows that all isn't that quiet on the Eastern front for some countries. in their September special report entitled "The party is getting crazier – stay close to the door":

"China is borrowing growth from the future 

1. China needs to adjust to the new normal of a persistent slowing in potential growth, as the working population shrinks and the low-hanging productivity gains diminish.
2. China has reached the point where the rubber hits the road: The problems of overcapacity, over-leverage and keeping zombie companies afloat have become so large that they are bearing down on growth via falling returns on capital and rising debt-servicing costs. Leaving it so late, rebalancing away from investment is being forced upon China, and is fraught with risks.

1. Rebalancing and restructuring is likely to hurt growth in the short run, including negative spillover effects on consumption and services. Unsurprisingly, the hardest supply-side reforms – restructuring SOEs, deleveraging and banks properly pricing credit risk – have been left to last. Monetary and fiscal stimulus can buy some time, but they are losing efficacy and can fuel bubbles.

1. For new engines of growth, the economy must be opened up to market forces, but as China is discovering, this is hard at the best of times, let alone when economic fundamentals are weak. History in EM shows that financial liberalisation often precedes credit crunches, banking crises and capital flight.

• We find it striking that the distribution of the latest 2017 growth forecasts display no fattening tail risk of hard landing (i.e., exactly 50% of forecasts are below the median).

• The downside risks to our growth forecasts of 6.5% in 2016 6.1% in 2017 and 5.5% in 2018 include a mass exodus of capital by Chinese residents and snowballing corporate defaults. Upside risks are mega policy stimulus (but this risks creating bigger bubbles) or window-dressing reported GDP (ultimately undermining policy credibility and the chance of policy mistakes).

Four reasons not to overburden monetary policy

1.  Easing monetary policy risks inciting even stronger capital outflows.
2. Aggressive monetary easing risks creating even bigger financial imbalances, since debt and asset prices are interest-rate sensitive. The inflation-adjusted bank deposit rate is near zero.
3. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument affecting the overall economy; it can be less useful when the economy’s performance is more uneven. In 2014, only one of China’s 31 provinces had sub-3% nominal GDP growth; in 2015, eight did, with a total population of 304mn. Also, China’s large manufacturers had a PMI reading of 51.8 in August 2016, compared with 47.4 for small manufacturers.
4. It may be wise to save some interest rate ammo to ease the pain of eventual deleveraging." - source Nomura

One might wonder if indeed it is a case of "Big Trouble in Little China" or "Small Trouble in Big China" but we ramble again. Of course while everyone is focusing on Deutsche Bank, we would like to point out to Nomura's very valid points regarding a potential credit crunch unfolding in Asia at some point from their very interesting special report:

"There is a high risk of a credit crunch in Asia

• The combination of rapid private debt build-up and elevated property prices is worrying: when they inevitably reverse, the negative feedback loops can activate financial decelerator effects.

• Cheap credit has weakened productivity by misallocating capital (e.g., property speculation), reducing pressure for supply-side reforms and kept zombie companies alive. Potential growth is slowing across most of Asia. 

• Debt-service ratios are high and rising in many countries, at a time when interest rates are at, or close to, record lows.

• Potential triggers: faster than expected Fed rate hikes; sharp USD appreciation; large RMB devaluation; a major EM corporate default prompting global asset managers to pull out from the region en masse, causing market liquidity to evaporate; inflation shock in Asia; politics.

- source Nomura

Of course, we agree with the above from Nomura that the seeds for a credit crunch have been sown and the rising private debt in conjunction with already high elevated real estate prices particularly in Hong Kong warrants close monitoring. As a follow up on our HKD take from our  December conversation "Cinderella's golden carriage", where we pointed out our concerns relating to the HKD currency peg, and its exposure to China tourism which so far have been moving in drove to Tokyo to benefit from cheaper luxury goods priced in Japanese yen, it appears to us that both the credit gap and the property price gap have been quite stretched in Hong Kong. While 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 back in December last year,we might have been early for 2016, we would not rule it out eventually as pressure mounts on China. maybe it will be for 2017 after all. As we indicated in our "The disappearance of MS München" conversation, the fate of the attack of the Yuan and in effect the attack of the HKD peg can be analyzed through the lens of the Nash Equilibrium Concept:

"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

It seems to us that speculators, so far have not been able to gather together or at least one of them, did not believe enough in the success of the attack. It all depends on the willingness of the speculators rather than the fundamentals. For a short strategy to succeed, it is much better to hunt as a pack than to be a lone wolf or at least to cry wolf on a specific situation. When it comes to the fate of the HKD peg, Nomura has been solacing again our concerns in their note:

"HK stuck between a rock (Fed hikes) and a hard place (ebbing China)

• Hong Kong has large credit and property market bubbles. Since 2008, real property prices have risen 109% (the recent correction is reversing), and the ratio of private non-financial credit to GDP has surged to 278%.

• The real effective exchange rate has risen 21% since 2011. The current account surplus/GDP has shrunk from 15% in 2008 to 3% in 2015, and is no longer a larger buffer to net capital outflows.

• Foreign assets and liabilities have surged since 2008. This leaves significant scope for capital outflows which, via the currency board, would likely lead to a spike in Hibor rates. Official reserve assets, at 10% of total liabilities, are a limited buffer.

• Economic hardship could ignite further political and social unrest, or vice versa, ahead of the selection of a new chief executive in March 2017. We would not rule out rising pressures on the HKD peg regime.

HKD re-pegged to the RMB? The HKD peg to USD could face its most trying time since it was adopted 32 years ago. Hong Kong imported US QE due to the peg, which has fueled what seems to be a bigger property market bubble than in 1997, while its economy and markets have rapidly become more integrated with China’s. Hong Kong would be stuck between a rock and a hard place if the Fed were to accelerate hiking and China’s growth keep slowing. Also, if Hong Kong were to face capital flight, the currency board system means that short-term interest rates would automatically rise, increasing the risk of a property market crash. Ideally, it is too early to re-peg to the RMB as it is not yet a fully convertible currency, nor have China’s financial markets developed to the point where interest rates are the primary tool of monetary policy. However, China is making progress on both these fronts and re-pegging would be a shot in the arm for RMB internationalisation. An out-of-the-blue Swiss-franc style regime change is not out of the question." - source Nomura.

Back in September 2015 in 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.

It remains to be seen, if the recent spike in Hibor rates will not once more put yet again some end of the year additional pressure on the currency peg. We might have been early but, after all, we might not be wrong eventually. We will of course continue to monitor this interesting trend rest assured. End of the day currency pegs like "empires" are not eternal as a reminder:

- source Société Générale

When it comes to Asia, while Japan has been at the forefront of Quantitative Easing for many years, they recently joined the NIRP club in early 2016 on the footsteps of the ECB, in our next point we will look at the impact the policy has had on loan growth and what it entails.

• Macro and Credit  - Loan growth under NIRP - The case of Japan

While we have long been indicating that QEs and NIRP in no way on their own were sufficient enough to trigger a material change in "credit impulse" which would therefore entail a significant change in real economic growth, we find that Japan's recent experiment with NIRP in the footsteps of the ECB is as well a confirmation of the broken credit transmission which has plagued Southern Europe in recent years thanks to bloated banks balanced sheets and the insufficient rapidity with which these NPLs were addressed in both instance but has as well impacted the Japanese economy.

On this particular subject of loan growth under NIRP, we have read with interest yet another note from Nomura from the 17th of September entitled "Loan growth has not changed materially in

real terms":

"The BOJ expects its negative rates policy to boost borrowing by companies and households as loan rates fall, spurring capital investment and housing investment. In this report, we examine changes in loan balances since the negative rates policy was introduced, trends in loan rates, changes in loan demand by companies and households, and changes in financial institutions’ lending stance.We found that growth in bank lending seems to be falling. However, this was largely due to changes in currency exchange rates (stronger JPY reduces the amount of foreign currency lending in nominal terms), while actual lending growth is almost unchanged. Financial institutions appear to have become more aggressive in lending, but corporate loan demand has not changed much, and the increase in loan demand from households was largely attributable to refinancing, with few signs of accelerated loan growth.

Implications and points to watch for in comprehensive assessment 

As noted above, loan rates have fallen since the BOJ adopted negative policy rates, but loan growth has not picked up, which suggests that BOJ policy has only a limited impact on the real economy.
The BOJ cites an increase in the issuance of super-long corporate bonds and subordinated loans as a result of its adoption of negative policy rates, but we believe this has had only a limited impact on the economy overall. The BOJ should also look at the impact that a stronger stock market and weaker JPY could have on the economy.
The BOJ’s main concern has been a deterioration of the financial intermediary function, which could occur if banks tighten their lending (i.e., extending fewer loans, raising loan rates) as loan margins narrow. This has not yet been the case.
The BOJ should quantitatively assess the negative impact of its policy on financial institution earnings and their net capital, and determine how much policy rates can fall before destabilizing the financial system." - source Nomura

As loan margins will continue to narrow, there is a heightened risk that banks could decide to extend fewer loan due to lack of demand or poor profitability, in effect triggering a credit crunch in a context where there is subdued demand for credit overall. This is as well highlighted in Nomura's report:

"According to a survey on major loan trends, loan demand was unchanged for companies (5 in June from 7 in December) and rose sharply for households (9 in June from 0 in December). However, lending to households may have included substantial refinancing demand.
In fact, the key factor cited by financial institutions in explaining the increase in individuals’ demand for capital is the drop in loan rates, not growing housing investment and higher personal spending. Moreover, we believe slow growth in corporate lending likely reflects weak loan demand in the corporate sector, and not so much financial institutions’ stance on lending. " - source Nomura

Weak loan demand means that at the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) and now NIRP, there is very little monetary policies can do. Now that we have a case of broken monetary transmission to the real economy, there is very little in that context for additional unconventional policies from the Bank of Japan to work their magic on the real economy.

We have already touched on this subject in April in our long conversation "Shrugging Atlas" where we discussed Japan and the kite string theory:

"That is the very difficult situation that lies with "easy policy", there is an easy way in, but no easy way out. So as goes the the kite string theory, you can control a kite by pulling its string, but not pushing it. Once you reach the ZLB and implement NIRP on top of QE, it seems to us monetary policies become ineffective." - source Macronomics, April 2016

We keep hammering this but it seems to us that central banks do not understand clearly the difference between stock and flows. Aggregate Demand (AD) as well as "credit growth" are flow variables, NPLs are stock issues. That simple. Despite aggressive monetary policy easing, the ability of central banks to boost bank lending and hence economic growth is been limited at the ZLB or NIRP level. The basic problem, both with monetary expansion and NIRP, is that the primary transmission channel is via the commercial banks, and that channel has, for a variety of reasons, is broken as we have pointed out in numerous conversations.

Maybe "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers should Bank of America Merrill Lynch's recent primer entitled "How European Banks work" from the 26th of September to fully grasp the stupidity of NIRP in a difficult deleveraging environment akin to adding fuel to the fire they have set up:

"Bank profits leveraged to economic cycle 

Bank profits are naturally leveraged to the economic cycle. Net interest income accounts for c.50% of bank revenues. Increasing this revenue generally involves growing the loan book, which relies on a combination of economic growth and product penetration. Fee revenue also depends on economic activity. On the other hand, economic downturns cause banks to increase provisions for credit losses.

Summary

• Credit risk has a pro-cyclical effect on profits. Credit losses are higher ineconomic downturns
• Credit provisions cumulate on the balance sheet as a negative asset and reduceboth shareholders’ equity and regulatory capital

Banks lend money on the expectation that the full amount is paid back. However, borrowers cannot always pay back all of the money they have borrowed, nor can they always meet their monthly loan costs.
Payment difficulties typically increase during times of economic stress: Individuals may lose their jobs, see a sharp fall in incomes and not be able to cover their repayments. Companies may find reduced demand for their products, affecting revenues and their debt obligations.
Banks are exposed to potential losses, as they may not get back the full amount they initially lent. Once a borrower misses a payment they are said to be “in arrears”. Once they are 90 days behind, the outstanding portion becomes a non-performing loan, (NPL).
Banks must set aside provisions for such losses. These provisions can be large and reduce profits, equity and regulatory capital. While critical to a bank’s health, such provisions are a non-cash item. This undermines the usefulness of cash flow statements for banks.
Loan growth and revenues are linked to the economic cycle. Credit losses are also linked to the cycle. Bank profits can therefore be highly cyclical. 

• Credit risk has a pro-cyclical effect on profits. Credit losses are higher in economic downturns
• Credit provisions cumulate on the balance sheet as a negative asset and reduce both shareholders’ equity and regulatory capital

- source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

As a reminder, 50% of banks earnings for average commercial banks come from the loan book: no funding, no loan; no loan, no growth; and; no growth means no earnings. And, to say the least, one thing for sure, NIRP marks the end of Banking Empire Days rest assured. Also like we posited before, the problems facing Europe and Japan are more acute than in the United States because they are driven by a demographic not financial cycle. So, when it comes to low loan growth under NIRP, in the case of Japan, thanks to unfavorable demography, it marks we think the end of the "Empire Days" and the sun is setting, not rising.

Finally, as we have been commenting as well on various occasion, central banks meddling with asset prices is not only pushing cross-asset correlations higher but it is as well brewing instability and triggering more significant large standard deviation movements overall.

• Final chart: Market’s growing dependence on central bank stimulus means more prone to “corrections”

While we have shown in various conversations the instability created by "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers thanks to rising correlations, the impact can be seen in our final chart coming from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's The European Credit Strategist note from the 20th of September entitled "QE’s merry-go-round" from the 20th of September which displays the number of 4 plus SD (Standard Deviations) movements across markets over time:

“Corrections” par for the course 

"More broadly, because of the market’s growing dependence on central bank stimulus, we think assets are generally becoming more prone to “corrections”. Chart 1 highlights our Correction Counter: the number of 4 SD moves registered across markets over time. Brexit (June ’16) and China (August ’15) were clearly powerful events that drove market reversals. Yet, we think chart 1 also shows a general rise in the number of “corrections” since mid-2014 – interestingly, a time when the ECB first embraced negative rates." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

So there you go, what is indeed NIRP accelerating is the end of the statu quo and end of the low volatility regime which will of course end many "Empires" including banking Empires we think but, that's a story for another day...

"All enterprises that are entered into with indiscreet zeal may be pursued with great vigor at first, but are sure to collapse in the end." - Tacitus

Stay tuned!

Macro and Credit - The reverse Tobin tax

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" - Albert Einstein

Watching with interest the stabilization and even tightening in the credit markets, in conjunction with People's Bank of China (PBOC) cutting by 50 bps its Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR), adding to the "risk-on" environment witnessed recently and given the continuous conversations relating to NIRP, we decided, for our elected title analogy to refer to the Tobin tax. The Tobin tax suggested by Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Laureate economist James Tobin was originally defined as a tax on all spot conversions of one currency into another. This tax intended to put a penalty on short-term financial round-trip excursions from the speculative crowd and was suggested in 1972, shortly after the fall of the Bretton Woods system which ended on August 15 of 1971. 

Why, you might rightly ask dear readers, did we elect to talk about a reverse Tobin tax in our chosen title?

Well, if you remember correctly from our previous conversation "The Monkey and banana problem", we argued that NIRP doesn't reduce the cost of capital. NIRP is simply a currency play.

And if indeed NIRP is a currency play, given James Tobin's objective was to mitigate currency volatility, no doubt to us that the latest bout of volatility witnessed on the Japanese yen is indeed some form of a "reverse Tobin tax". What we find amusing is that James Tobin was influenced by the earlier of John Maynard Keynes on general financial transaction taxes and the famous chapter XII of the General Theory on Employment Interest and Money. Keynes was an avid speculator and the recent NIRP put in place by various generous gamblers aka central bankers, is leading to a renewed frenzy of speculation in the bond market where all the fun is with more and more bonds yielding on the negative side and their prices reaching new record high levels:

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the situation is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation." - John Maynard Keynes, page 104.

Indeed the situation is becoming serious when the bond market has become a whirlpool of speculation. On a side note, we find the PBOC move amusing given, as we posited with the ECB LTROs, liquidity injections doesn't resolve solvency issues, particularly when it comes to Nonperforming loans (NPLs).

John Maynard Keynes would be proud of NIRP given it will definitely lead to the "euthanasia rentier" but unfortunately also to the disappearance of "capital" as he wrote:

"I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution.

Thus we might aim in practice (there being nothing in this which is unattainable) at an increase in the volume of capital until it ceases to be scarce, so that the functionless investor will no longer receive a bonus; and at a scheme of direct taxation which allows the intelligence and determination and executive skill of the financier, the entrepreneur et hoc genus omne (who are certainly so fond of their craft that their labour could be obtained much cheaper than at present), to be harnessed to the service of the community on reasonable terms of reward..." - John Maynard Keynes

We do not think in the end, capital will be "free and "abundant" with NIRP. Keynes added at the time in relation to tax on transactions the following:

"The introduction of a substantial government transfer tax on all transactions might prove the most serviceable reform available, with a view to mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise in the United States." - John Maynard Keynes, page 105.

For us, NIRP is a "reverse Tobin tax" leading in the end to the "euthanasia of the rentier" as more and more government bonds fall into negative yield territory, hence our chosen title. If indeed James Tobin tax was supposed to lead to lower volatility in the FX markets, the reverse Tobin tax aka NIRP is leading to the reverse, that's a given but we are rambling again...

In this week's conversation, we will look again at the credit cycle and the issue with correlations with diversification we recently discussed. We will as well look at how NIRP will be playing out credit wise and trouble brewing in Asia. 

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The US Global Credit cycle leads Emerging Markets by around 6 months
• Macro and Credit  - The US late stage will have nasty credit consequences on Asia
• Final chart: US Rates skew may reflect policy mistake / recession risks

• Macro and Credit - The US Global Credit cycle leads Emerging Markets by around 6 months

In our last conversation "The Monkey and banana problem" we indicated that NIRP would exacerbate the demand for yield as the saving rate goes up, which no doubt is leading the negative feedback-loop to push the frenzy for bonds into "overdrive" hence for the first time we have seen the demand for the Japanese 10 year government bond (JGB) pushing for the first time the yield into negative territory. This of course a clear manifestation of the "reverse Tobin tax" and the "euthanasia of the rentier".  The operant conditioning chamber we discussed last week, aka the Skinner box has indeed led to a "Pavlovian" response leading to even further greater compression. As we posited last week, what matters more and more to us is tracking "correlations" given the implications for "diversification" are not neutral:

"The consequence for this means that classical theories based on allocation become more and more challenged in a NIRP world because correlation patterns change in a crisis period particularly when correlations are becoming more and more positive (hence large standard deviations move)." - Macronomics, February 2016

When it comes to "correlations" we read with interest Société Générale's take from their Multi Asset Snapshot note from the 26th of February entitled "A balanced portfolio for an imperfect world":

"While we may have been too aggressive with a balanced allocation before the market downturn, we're not keen to take the revolving door and go risk averse now. We are recommending a balanced allocation. The average correlation between assets has recently pulled back, making us more convinced to keep the current allocation of 50% equities/50% bonds and others.

- source Société Générale

What effectively Société Générale is showing is confirming somewhat we have posited as of late in our conversation "The disappearance of MS München". Namely that in a world of growing "positive correlations" diversification reduces the benefit of diversification:

"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." - source Macronomics, February 2016

This also a subject we discussed in our May 2015 conversation "Cushing's syndrome":

We quoted  Louis Capital Markets Cross Asset Weekly report from the 20th of April entitled "No more safety net" at the time:

In a ZIRP world plagued by rising positive correlations, we would argue that the luck of "balanced fund managers" is about to run out

We quoted  Louis Capital Markets Cross Asset Weekly report from the 20th of April entitled "No more safety net" at the time: 

"Buying uncorrelated assets will lower the volatility of a portfolio without diluting it to the same extent as the expected return. In a context of price stability, the bond asset class was the perfect diversifying asset for equities as long as equities were driven by the economic cycle. The problem of this market cycle is that the necessary hypotheses for this negative bond-equity correlation have disappeared. Monetary authorities have not managed to restore price stability in the developed world and economic growth is lower than before. As a consequence, the stubborn actions of central banks have distorted the pricing of bonds and they have therefore lost their sensitivity to the business cycle." - Louis Capital Markets

What we are currently seeing is a repricing of bond volatility which had been "anesthetized" by central bankers leading to Cushing's syndrome. Central bankers meddling with interest rates levels have led investors to get out of their comfort zone and extend both their risk exposure and duration, taking the repressed volatility regime as an empirical factor in their VaR related allocation risk process. Now they are rediscovering in the ongoing turmoil that, yes indeed long duration exposure is more volatile than shorter ones. They are also rediscovering "convexity" with artificially repressed yields. They are being significantly punished the more exposed to "credit" duration they are." - Macronomics, May 2015

Thanks to central banks "overmedication" we are indeed facing more and more "Blue Monday" price action, rest assured and "Balanced funds managers" are facing an uphill struggle in maintaining their stellar records of the last decade in this environment. Where is the value left in your bond holding when the German 10 year government bond (Bund) yield is about to turn negative? Yes, it will go negative and so will probably be the rest of the Japanese curve to mimic what has been happening on the Swiss yield curve. The most dangerous negative side effect of the "reverse Tobin tax" is already pushing the Swiss real estate bubbly market into overdrive as indicated by Bloomberg on the 29th of February in their article "Mom-Pop Investors Rush Into Swiss Property at Riskiest Time":

"Mom-and-pop investors are rushing into Swiss properties just as the market faces its greatest threat of a bubble in a quarter century.
“I see two protracting trends,” Patrik Gisel, chief executive officer of Swiss Raffeisen, the country’s third-largest bank, said in an interview in Zurich. One involves big money -- institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies who have invaded the market, driven by negative yields on Swiss government bonds. More recently, a new group of investors has entered the fray, buying properties to rent or develop rather than for a primary residence.
“What’s really new is that private investors are piling in to buy real-estate assets for yield due to limited options,” he said. These aren’t ultra-rich speculators, rather well-to-do people looking to build nest eggs at a time of record-low interest rates and market turmoil. Although they are still just a small part of the market, “this is reducing the professionalism,” he said.

Soft Landing

Raiffeisen, a cooperative encompassing about 300 regional banks, is one of Switzerland’s five systemically relevant banks, along with UBS Group AG and Credit Suisse Group AG. It holds about 17 percent of the Swiss mortgage market, with home loans representing about 95 percent of the total volume of 166 billion francs ($166 billion) at the end of the 2015.
The Swiss property market is facing the greatest threat of a real estate bubble since 1991, UBS said in a report this month on the subject. Loan applications for properties not occupied by owners dipped in the fourth quarter, yet remain historically elevated at about 18 percent of the overall demand. House prices rose 0.5 percent from the third quarter and around 2 percent yearly.
While the risk of default on mortgages remains low in Switzerland, vacancy rates are rising, with prices “driven by investments, not by the need for living space,” Gisel said. Unlike in countries including the U.K. and U.S., Swiss buyers traditionally are looking to make a lifetime investment as capital gains taxes make it costly to speculate.
Gisel, formerly the deputy CEO who succeeded Pierin Vincenz at the head of Raiffeisen last year, said he sees a “soft landing” in the property market. The bank said during its earnings report Friday that prices are stabilizing at a high level or declining slightly.

Swiss apartment prices and mortgage lending climbed by about a third between 2007 and 2014. A price increase of 2 percent would have been unappealing just four years ago, Gisel said.
The Swiss National Bank introduced charges on bank deposits in an effort to weaken the franc, which soared after it lifted its three-year-old cap on the currency in January 2015. Some big banks such as UBS and Credit Suisse have passed on the pain of negative interest rates to their larger institutional clients. Retail clients have been spared, for now.
“Equities are too risky for many private investors, bonds don’t yield anything,
so people go for real estate but often have a poor understanding of this market,” says Fredy Hasenmaile, head of real estate research at Credit Suisse. Inexperienced investors tend to underestimate the costs associated to maintain a property." - source Bloomberg

We have argued in a 2011 conversation that the policy of achieving a high home ownership rate is the biggest threat to an economy:

"The issue with enticing a high home ownership rate is the level of household debt it generates. It can be argued that the most toxic of all bubbles is a housing/property bubble. They also always generate a financial crisis when they burst due to the leverage at play. How the risk can be mitigated? By forcing players to have more skin in the game.

For us, a housing bubble is a Weapon of Economic Destruction (WED) and pushing real estate prices into overdrive is certainly akin to a "reverse Tobin tax" and the most efficient way in destroying "mis-allocation" of capital on a grand scale and "euthanizing the rentier" for good.

But moving back to the subject of the credit cycle, we still believe we are in 2007, although subprime is not the "prime" suspect this time around as the Energy sector woes have clearly spilled over into over sectors as well. The rising of distress securities is creeping up and it is not only in the Energy sector as displayed in the below S&P Global Market Intelligence chart:

"A host of U.S. energy companies joined LCD’s distressed debt Restructuring Watchlist last week, adding to an already hefty group of issuers from that still-struggling market segment.
The Watchlist tracks companies with recent credit defaults or downgrades into junk territory, issuers with debt trading at deeply distressed levels, as well as those that have recently hired restructuring advisors or entered into credit negotiations.

- source S&P Capital IQ LCD

This is entirely due to ZIRP and now NIRP as shown in the below Société Générale from their Credit Weekly note from the 26th of February 2016 entitled "Will the G20 disappoint credit investors":

"In a low real interest rate environment, however, such as the 1970s or the present, the four year period of stability disappears and the credit cycle becomes much shorter. Chart 3 illustrates this:

Table 2 above implies that the global credit cycle is, as always, relatively synchronous, with the US leading EM by around six months. Assuming two-year widening and two-year tightening cycles, with a peak of the cycle in early 2016 and a trough in late 2017 or early 2018, this implies the following:

- source Société Générale.

The United States are leading once more the credit cycle and the rapid pace at which spreads have widened since the cost of capital has been moving up since the summer of 2014 is indicative of how late the cycle is and the potential spillover to Emerging Markets thanks to Global Financial Conditions tightening in conjunction with the relentless rise of the US dollar.

When it comes to credit and the "Japanification" process, the hunt for yield is still running strongly although some might have already moved higher the quality spectrum in the light of the deterioration seen recently in credit spreads. European investors in a "reverse Tobin tax" environment will be eager to go for even more duration and credit risk as posited in Société Générale's note:

"European investors will still be hungry for yield. European ten-year yields have fallen almost 50 basis points this year, with the Bund yielding just over 10bp. It’s hardly surprising that European insurance companies are steering their clients away from guaranteed life products, as our insurance analyst Rotger Franz has noted, but they are still left with legacy products that need to be funded. Our SG shortfall model estimates the current gap between what insurers need and what the government markets are offering at almost 140bp.

Given this gap, we think the demand for credit will remain strong. It’s worth noting, however, that this demand will be much stronger in the BBB area than in the AA and A area, since spreads have compressed too much in those areas to offer the returns that investors need." - source Société Générale.

Insurers have are indeed struggling with NIRP and are slowly getting "euthanized". While we have long been highlighting the dangers with Emerging Market corporate debt denominated in US dollars, it is worth highlighting Société Générale's comment before we move on to our next point:

• "Emerging market sovereigns will not be able to bail out their corporates: The ratio between EM sovereign spreads and corporate spreads has narrowed this year, when the mismatches in the indices are accounted for. Yet EM corporate debt – either domestic debt as a percentage of GDP, or external debt as a percentage of reserves – is often much bigger than government debt, as we noted in "Can EM sovereigns really bail out their corporates?" We think this year, investors will realise that many EM corporates will not be bailed out by their sovereigns.
• EM defaults will be higher and recovery rates lower than the market expects. Given the weakness of commodity prices and the weakness of EM currencies, we are more bearish about these issuers than we are about US high yield issuers." - source Société Générale

The latest sign of the strain facing EM corporate issuers is clearly illustrated by Mexican giant PEMEX losing $32 billion in 2015. Mexico's largest company and big contributor to the government's budget has more than $87 billion in debt and hasn't recorded a profit since 2012 according to Bloomberg. The government of Mexico has pledged financial support for its ailing giant. 

This leads us to our second point and once again the unintended consequences of our Macro theory of reverse osmosis playing out as we have argued in our conversation "Osmotic pressure" back in August 2013:

"The effect of ZIRP has led to a "lower concentration of interest rates levels" in developed markets (negative interest rates). In an attempt to achieve higher yields, hot money rushed into Emerging Markets causing "swelling of returns" as the yield famine led investors seeking higher return, benefiting to that effect the nice high carry trade involved thanks to low bond volatility." - Macronomics, 24th of August 2013

Now the "flows" are turning into "outflows" leading to the following points we discussed at the time:

"In a normal "macro" osmosis process, the investors naturally move from an area of low solvency concentration (High Default Perceived Potential), through capital flows, to an area of high solvency concentration (Low Default Perceived Potential). The movement of the investor is driven to reduce the pressure from negative interest rates on returns by pouring capital on high yielding assets courtesy of low rates volatility and putting on significant carry trades, generating osmotic pressure and "positive asset correlations" in the process. Applying an external pressure to reverse the natural flow of capital with US rates moving back into positive real interest rates territory, thus, is reverse "macro" osmosis we think. Positive US real rates therefore lead to a hypertonic surrounding in our "macro" reverse osmosis process, therefore preventing Emerging Markets in stemming capital outflows at the moment." - Macronomics, August 2013.

We also added at the time:

"More liquidity = greater economic instability once QE ends for Emerging Markets. If our theory is right and osmosis continues and becomes excessive the cell will eventually burst, in our case defaults for some over-exposed dollar debt corporates and sovereigns alike will spike.

Emerging Markets including China are in an hypertonic situation, therefore the tendency is for capital to flow out. In conjunction with capital outflows from exposed "macro tourists" playing the carry trade for too long, the recent price action in US High Yield and the convexity risk we warned about as well as the CCC bucket being the credit canary are all indicative of the murderous proficiency of "Mack the Knife" (King Dollar + positive real US interest rates)." - source Macronomics August 2013

While the PBOC might have indeed bought some time in adding more liquidity, the worrying trend of capital outflows have yet to meaningfully slow down, meaning for us that, indeed Asia should as well be the focus of more attention, but not only China...

  

• Macro and Credit  - The US late stage will have nasty credit consequences on Asia

Back in July 2015 in our conversation "Mack the Knife" we indicated that EM credit spreads and oil prices were highly correlated. 

The correlation of oil and credit spreads mean that indeed the unintended consequences of the surge of the US dollar and the fall in oil prices have not translated much as before into Asia's energy-importing economies as illustrated by Nomura in their Asia in Charts note from February 2016 entitled "Asia's coming credit crunch":

"• Cheap oil has not benefited Asia’s energy-importing economies as much as it had in the past. In early 2008, if you responded “sub-6%” to the question of how fast Asia ex-Japan’s economies would grow if oil prices halved and most Asian central banks slashed rates to new, or near, record lows, you would have been scoffed at. More of the oil windfall appears to have been saved or offset by the China slowdown, weak EM demand, high domestic leverage and low productivity growth.

• That said, the commodity price drop has been a big differentiator in favour of Asia, as fundamentals and growth have fared better in Asia vis-à-vis LatAm and EEMEA. Asia is the least ugly in EM, at least for now. If risk sentiment turns, Asia may experience a short-run relief rally, buoyed by: 1) still ample global liquidity; 2) any signs of China growth stabilising, albeit it would be temporarily, in our view; and 3) more discriminating investors in global emerging markets in Asia’s favour.

• However, more fundamentally the seeds are being sown for a credit crunch and financial stress in Asia:
1) high and still-rising private debt, combined with still elevated property prices; 2) slowing potential growth rates; 3) increasing foreign-currency debt exposure; 4) large herding-like investments by global asset management companies in Asia (‘original sin II’); 5) the Fed surprising with more/faster rate hikes; and 6) China’s economy facing a secular slowdown in growth in 2016 and 2017." - source Nomura

As our reverse "macro" osmosis has been playing out and given the credit binge witnessed in some parts of Asia, we agree with the above from Nomura that the seeds for a credit crunch have been sown and the rising private debt in conjunction with already high elevated real estate prices particularly in Hong Kong warrants close monitoring.

There is a heightened possibility of a credit crunch looming in Asia as posited by Nomura in their very interesting report:

"Asia is setting itself up for a credit crunch 

• The combination of rapid private debt build-up and elevated property prices is worrying: when they inevitably reverse, the negative feedback loops can cause financial decelerator effects.

• Cheap credit has weakened productivity by misallocating capital (eg. property speculation), dis-incentivising supply-side reforms and keeping zombie companies alive. Potential growth is slowing across most of Asia.

• Debt-service ratios are high and rising in many countries, at a time when interest rates are at, or close to, record lows.
• Triggers of a credit crunch could be the market caught off-guard by Fed rate hikes, USD sharp appreciation, a China setback, or a high profile Asian corporate default prompting global asset managers to pull out from the region en masse and causing market liquidity to evaporate.

 Asia’s credit and property price gaps are sending warning signals

• Pioneering work at the BIS by Claudio Borio and Philip Lowe in the early 2000s found that over a 4-year horizon a credit gap of >4% predicted 88% of crises in industrial countries with a noise to signal ratio (NSR) of 0.21, while an equity gap >60% predicted 67% of crises with an NSR of 0.15. Jointly they predicted 73% of crises with an NSR of 0.02 (i.e., issued wrong signals only 2% of the time).
• Since then more studies, including of EM crises, have reaffirmed that credit is the single best predictor of crises and, with better data, property prices are generally found to be more important than equity prices.
• In a more recent 2011 BIS study (working paper No. 355) of 36 advanced and EM countries it was found that over a 3-year horizon, a credit gap >10% predicted 67% of crises with an NSR of 0.16, and a property gap >10% predicted 77% of crises with an NSR of 0.33. This is an ominous sign for Asia, as highlighted in the table below.

The best indicator of financial crises is the credit gap; the property price gap is also a strong indicator, and jointly they send a strong signal

 (click to enlarge picture)

- source Nomura

From the table above, and as a follow up on our HKD take from our  December conversation "Cinderella's golden carriage", where we pointed out our concerns relating to the HKD currency peg, and its exposure to China tourism which so far have been moving in drove to Tokyo to benefit from cheaper luxury goods priced in Japanese yen, it appears to us that both the credit gap and the property price gap have been quite stretched in Hong Kong. On this specific case, Nomura's report has added more on our justified concerns in their note:

"Hong Kong could be Asia's flashpoint

 HK stuck between a rock (Fed hikes) and a hard place (ebbing China)

• Hong Kong has large credit and property market bubbles. Since 2008, real property prices have risen 112% (they have corrected 11%), and the ratio of private non-financial credit to GDP has surged to 293%.

• The real effective exchange rate has risen 26% since 2011. The current account surplus/GDP has shrunk from 15% in 2008 to 3% in 2015.

 • Foreign assets and liabilities have surged since 2008. this leaves significant scope for capital outflows which, via the currency board, would likely lead to a spike in Hibor rates. Official reserve assets, at 10% of total liabilities, are a limited buffer.

• Economic hardship could ignite further political and social unrest, or vice versa, ahead of the 2016 Legco elections (around Sep) and 2017 chief exec elections. We would not rule out a change to the HKD peg regime." - source Nomura

And, as per us winning 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 December "Cinderella's golden carriage", we might have been early for 2016, we would not rule it out eventually as pressure mounts on China. Maybe it will be for 2017 after all...For now the Hong Kong dollar has recorded the biggest monthly gain since 2011 in February on optimism that the city will be able to maintain its peg to the US dollar as reported by Bloomberg in their article from the 29th of February entitled "Hong Kong Dollar in Biggest Monthly Gain Since 2011 as Peg Holds":

"The Hong Kong dollar advanced 0.18 percent this month to HK$7.7724 against its U.S. counterpart, the biggest increase since October 2011, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The currency rose 0.06 percent on Monday to trade near the strong end of its HK$7.75-HK$7.85 trading range.
“The Hong Kong dollar was one of the biggest speculative targets in January, especially amid fears of the yuan being devalued,” said Irene Cheung, a foreign-exchange strategist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Singapore. “We need to watch the yuan, given how it’s affecting sentiment across markets. If the dollar-yuan rate continues to remain broadly stable, there’s no reason to focus on the Hong Kong-dollar peg for now.”

Yuan Deposits

The Hong Kong dollar was linked to the greenback in 1983, when negotiations between the U.K. and Beijing over the city’s return to Chinese rule spurred an exodus of capital, and policy makers in 2005 committed to limiting declines to the current range.
Hong Kong’s yuan deposits rose by 0.1 percent to 852 billion yuan in January, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority said on Monday. The pool posted its first annual decline last year, while issuance of Dim Sum bonds fell for the first time since the market’s inception in 2007." - source Bloomberg

As we indicated in our "The disappearance of MS München" conversation, the fate of the attack of the Yuan and in effect the attack of the HKD peg can be analyzed through the lens of the Nash Equilibrium Concept:

"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

It seems to us that speculators, so far has not been able to  gather together or at least one of them, did not believe enough in the success of the attack. It all depends on the willingness of the speculators rather than the fundamentals.

When it comes to the fate of the HKD peg, Nomura has been solacing our concerns in their note:

"HKD re-pegged to the RMB? 

The HKD peg to USD could face its most trying time since it was adopted 32 years ago. Hong Kong imported
US QE due to the peg, which has fueled what seems to be a bigger property market bubble than in 1997, while its economy and markets have rapidly become more integrated with China’s. Hong Kong would be stuck between a rock and a hard place if the Fed accelerates hiking and China’s growth keeps slowing. Also, if Hong Kong were to face capital flight, the currency board system means that short-term interest rates would automatically rise, increasing the risk of a property market crash. Ideally, it is too early to re-peg to the RMB as it is not yet a fully convertible currency, nor have China’s financial markets developed to the point where interest rates are the primary tool of monetary policy. However, China is making progress on both these fronts and re-pegging would be a shot in the arm for RMB internationalisation. An out-of-the-blue Swiss-franc style regime change is not out of the question." - source Nomura

Given our keen interest on this eventuality, we will be not only monitoring that space but also tracking financial conditions in Asia rest assured.

Finally for our final point and chart, we would like to point out that it's not only Hong Kong which is stuck between a rock (Fed hikes) and a hard place (ebbing China). The Fed is as well in a bind.

• Final chart: US Rates skew may reflect policy mistake / recession risks

Our final chart comes from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Liquid Insight note from the 1st of March entitled "Rates skew may be pricing a policy mistake":

"• US rates skew is now inverted in both short- and long-dated expiries, despite more dovish Fed expectations
• We believe this, at least in part, reflects higher perceived odds of a policy mistake and/or growth shock ahead
• From a historical standpoint, inverted long-dated skew is consistent with late stages of the hiking cycle

Inverted skew: Not a good sign for the Fed

A notable recent development in the US rates vol market is the inversion of the skew surface, with low strikes trading at a premium to high strikes. Short-dated skews were first to invert earlier this year. Today skews are inverted across the board, including very long expiries (Chart above). Importantly, the skew inversion occurred against expectations of a more dovish Fed. The market now sees the next Fed hike only by 4Q17, a much less hawkish outlook than FOMC projections. Lower rates coupled with expectations of a more accommodative Fed normally imply upward risks to rates. Yet, the volatility market sees risks to rates skewed on the downside even at very long horizons.
We believe this is a worrisome signal to policy makers. The inversion of the skew all the way into longer horizons suggests perceived risks go beyond the recent financial stress and may reflect greater perceived odds of a policy mistake/recession risks. Inverted long-dated skew is consistent with late stages of hiking cycles." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

To hike in March, or not to hike, that is the question...

"Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." - R. D. Laing, Scottish psychologist

Stay tuned!