Over the weekend there was a new and improved G-20 communique, which was supposed to offer reassurance that the primary economic decision makers have things under control. It is disconcerting that so much time was spent discussing the global uncertainty posed by BREXIT for the global equity markets have deemed the British vote to Leave the EU as non-event (at least for now) and maybe even a positive for the Davos elite to adjust previous policy decisions. It appears that some G-20 members look forward to dealing with the U.K. on trade issues outside an EU establishment that is reticent to foster trade agreements because of German and French elections scheduled for 2017.
Archive for the ‘G-20’ Category
The Japanese leave Washington with no support for alleviating one-sided currency moves. For China it is all about respect for growth, wherever it may be. The Chinese GDP was released on Thursday and it came out exactly as forecast at 6.7% (shocking, I know). There was virtually no criticism of the Chinese as the nations are watching closely while China commences its transition from an export-dominated economy to a more balanced growth model, where domestic consumption takes on increased importance. In contrast to the G-20 view on Japanese currency intervention, SNB President Thomas Jordan announced that the Swiss would increase its balance sheet through currency intervention “… to prevent an already ‘significantly overvalued’ franc from strengthening.”
(Larry Summers had to run to his medicine cabinet to take Prozac (not Diazepam as in the Rolling Stones song) after he read the G-20 communique. The finance ministers and central bank heads meeting in Shanghai failed to come to terms with any of the issues concerning the global economy. There was no PLAZA ACCORD and no deep discussions about the need for massive fiscal stimulus. The tone of the Communique was TEPID at best and views the present state of the global economy as slow but steady. There was certainly NO URGENCY about a rise in the prospects of a global recession. The finance ministers downplayed the recent volatility and slide in global equity markets, suggesting by those domiciled in ivory towers and model-based rat holes that the MARKETS ARE MISTAKEN AND THE MODELS ARE CORRECT. The arguments among the participants was such that there were some issues that seem in direct contradiction of any policy response.
It was nice to be away, playing some golf and visiting with friends. And now it’s back to work. (Confession: I was engrossed in reading for part of my days.) There two key issues before us: BREXIT and this weekend’s G-20. (Side note: I did a radio interview yesterday with Anthony Crudele on #FuturesRadio. Anthony did a great job and we covered a lot of ground. Listen to the piece and it will rehash much of what my blog readers have been reading during the past six years.) Here is my take on the G-20 meeting and it is interesting how the British elites are trying to co-opt part of the G-20 meeting to get support for the British Prime Minister David Cameron and his bumbling sidekick George Osborne.
Indulge me, my readers. When I saw the movie Fiddler On the Roof 43 years ago with my now-wife, there was a line that made me laugh for it mirrored conversations that we shared about my nose always being buried in a book about history, economics and probably politics. In the movie, the young radical Perchik wishes to ask Tevye’s daughter, Hodel, to marry him. The question takes place in this dialogue:
Last year the FED turned over $ 88.9 billion in profit to the U.S. Treasury, which was the “earned income” from the Fed’s QE program, for Bernanke’s Fed is the world’s largest coupon clipper. The Fed’s earnings are supposed to be turned over to the Treasury at regular intervals so why isn’t the Fed forwarding its gains to help the Treasury have more income to pay off the governments immediate expenses. If last year’s profits totaled $88.9 billion, this year’s gains should be larger as the balance sheet has grown by almost $850 BILLION. So where is the money, Ben?
Yesterday, I had a global macro session with some of the best users of the Notes From Underground. They are disciplined in pursuit of profit but as most of my readers try to do, pursue causation as a prelude to correlation. Carl had prepared a white board chart of all of the relevant events that are set to play out in September. April may be the cruelest month but September 2013 will certainly give T.S. Eliot’s poem a run for the grand title. The desire to anticipate any of the events may lead to a “wasteland” of capital. So thanks to Carl, let me restate the list of events:
Notes From Underground: G-20 Communique is Anything But (Seems Like an Agenda for a Political Platform)July 21, 2013
This weekend brought the results of two days of meetings of the financial ministers and central banks chiefs from the 20 “most significant” economies. The purpose of this visit to Russia was to set the agenda for the September G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg. Reuters posted a piece, “Text–Closing Communique From G20 finance Ministers Meeting,” which filters the results of two days discussions to seven main points. It is a WORTHLESS effort as the communique is filled with diplomatic language that assuages the egos and policies of every participant. The finance leaders OUGHT TO BE EMBARRASSED to release this nonsense. From Reuters:
As expected, the G-20 communique was more insipid blathering about global growth, BIS capital regulation and the enactment of some new macroprudential regulations to ensure global financial tranquility. To reflect on the lack of consistency in this communique, let me quote from point 20: “We welcome the OECD report on addressing base erosion and profit shifting and acknowledge that an important part of fiscal sustainability is securing our revenue bases.” This is pure nonsense for it reflects the great divide that exists between the old line powers of the G-7 and the more broad-based and emerging economies found within the structure of the G-20.The old line (developed) economies want to preserve their tax bases so as to have enough revenue to maintain previous promises of retirement and pension programs for their aging populations.