da zerohedge

Exclusive: The Fed's $600 Billion Stealth Bailout Of Foreign Banks Continues At The Expense Of The Domestic Economy, Or Explaining Where All The QE2 Money Went

Courtesy of the recently declassified Fed discount window documents, we now know that the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed's generosity during the peak of the credit crisis were foreign banks, among which Belgium's Dexia was the most troubled, and thus most lent to, bank. Having been thus exposed, many speculated that going forward the US central bank would primarily focus its "rescue" efforts on US banks, not US-based (or local branches) of foreign (read European) banks: after all that's what the ECB is for, while the Fed's role is to stimulate US employment and to keep US inflation modest. And furthermore, should the ECB need to bail out its banks, it could simply do what the Fed does, and monetize debt, thus boosting its assets, while concurrently expanding its excess reserves thus generating fungible capital which would go to European banks. Wrong. Below we present that not only has the Fed's bailout of foreign banks not terminated with the drop in discount window borrowings or the unwind of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, but that the only beneficiary of the reserves generated were US-based branches of foreign banks (which in turn turned around and funnelled the cash back to their domestic branches), a shocking finding which explains not only why US banks have been unwilling and, far more importantly, unable to lend out these reserves, but that anyone retaining hopes that with the end of QE2 the reserves that hypothetically had been accumulated at US banks would be flipped to purchase Treasurys, has been dead wrong, therefore making the case for QE3 a done deal. In summary, instead of doing everything in its power to stimulate reserve, and thus cash, accumulation at domestic (US) banks which would in turn encourage lending to US borrowers, the Fed has been conducting yet another stealthy foreign bank rescue operation, which rerouted $600 billion in capital from potential borrowers to insolvent foreign financial institutions in the past 7 months. QE2 was nothing more (or less) than another European bank rescue operation!
For those who can't wait for the punchline, here it is. Below we chart the total cash holdings of Foreign-related banks in the US using weekly H.8 data.

Note the $630 billion increase in foreign bank cash balances since November 3, which just so happens is the date when the Fed commenced QE2 operations in the form of adding excess reserves to the liability side of its balance sheet. Here is the change in Fed reserves during QE2 (from the Fed's H.4.1 statement, ending with the week of June 1).

Above, note that Fed reserves increased by $610 billion for the duration of QE2 through the week ending June 1 (and by another $70 billion in the week ending June 8, although since we only have bank cash data through June 1, we use the former number, although we are certain that the bulk of this incremental cash once again went to foreign financial institutions).
So how did cash held by US banks fare during QE2? Well, not good. The chart below demonstrates cash balances at small and large US domestic banks, as well as the cash at foreign banks, all of which is compared to total Fed reserves plotted on the same axis. It pretty much explains it all.

The chart above has tremendous implications for everything from US and European monetary policy, to exhange rate and trade policy, to the current account on both sides of the Atlantic, to US fiscal policy, to borrowing and lending activity in the US, and, lastly, to QE 3.
What is the first notable thing about the above chart is that while cash levels in US and US-based foreign-banks correlate almost perfectly with the Fed's reserve balances, as they should, there is a notable divergence beginning around May of 2010, or the first Greek bailout, when Europe was in a state of turmoil, and when cash assets of foreign banks jumped by $200 billion, independent of the Fed and of cash holdings by US banks. About 6 months later, this jump in foreign bank cash balances had plunged to the lowest in years, due to repatriated fungible cash being used to plug undercapitalized local operations, with total cash just $265 billion as of November 17, just as QE2 was commencing. Incidentally, the last time foreign banks had this little cash was April 2009... Just as QE1 was beginning. As to what happens next, the first chart above says it all: cash held by foreign banks jumps from $308 billion on November 3, or the official start of QE2, to $940 billion as of June 1: an almost dollar for dollar increase with the increase in Fed reserve balances. In other words, while the Fed did nothing to rescue foreign banks in the aftermath of the first Greek crisis, aside from opening up FX swap lines, one can argue that the whole point of QE2 was not so much to spike equity markets, or the proverbial "third mandate" of Ben Bernanke, but solely to rescue European banks!
What this observation also means, is that the bulk of risk asset purchasing by dealer desks (if any), has not been performed by US-based primary dealers, as has been widely speculated, but by foreign dealers, which have the designatin of "Primary" with the Federal Reserve. Below is the list of 20 Primary Dealers currently recognized by the New York Fed. The foreign ones, with US-based operations, are bolded:

  • BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
  • Barclays Capital Inc.
  • Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
  • Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
  • Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
  • Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
  • Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
  • Goldman, Sachs & Co.
  • HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
  • Jefferies & Company, Inc.
  • J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
  • MF Global Inc.
  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
  • Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
  • Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
  • Nomura Securities International, Inc.
  • RBC Capital Markets, LLC
  • RBS Securities Inc.
  • SG Americas Securities, LLC
  • UBS Securities LLC.
That's right, out of 20 Primary Dealers, 12 are.... foreign. And incidentally, the reason why we added the (if any) above, is that since this cash is fungible between on and off-shore operations, what happened is that the $600 billion in cash was promptly repatriated and used by domestic branches of foreign banks to fill undercapitalization voids left by exposure to insolvent European PIIGS and for all other bankruptcy-related capital needs. And one wonders why suddenly German banks are so willing to take haircuts on Greek bonds: it is simply because courtesy of their US based branches which have been getting the bulk of the Fed's dollars in 1 and 0 format, they suddenly find themselves willing and ready to face the mark to market on Greek debt from par to 50 cents on the dollar. And not only Greek, but all other PIIGS, which will inevitably happen once Greece goes bankrupt, either volutnarily or otherwise. In fact, the $600 billion in cash that was repatriated to Europe will mean that European banks likely are fully covered to face the capitalization shortfall that will occur once Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and possibly Italy are forced to face the inevitable Event of Default that will see their bonds marked down anywhere between 20% and 60%. Of course, this will also expose the ECB as an insolvent central bank, but that largely explains why Germany has been so willing to allow Mario Draghi to take the helm at an institution that will soon be left insolvent, and also explains the recent shocking animosity between Angela Merkel and Jean Claude Trichet: the German are preparing for the end of the ECB, and thanks to Ben Bernanke they are certainly capitalized well enough to handle the end of Europe's lender of first and last resort. But don't take our word for this: here is Stone McCarthy's explanation of what massive reserve sequestering by foreign banks means: "Foreign banks operating in the US often lend reserves to home offices or other banks operating outside the US. These loans do not change the volume of excess reserves in the system, but do support the funding of dollar denominated assets outside the US....Foreign banks operating in the US do not present a large source of C&I, Consumer, or Real Estate Loans. These banks represent about 16% of commercial bank assets, but only about 9% of bank credit. Thus, the concern that excess reserves will quickly fuel lending activities and money growth is probably diminished by the skewing of excess reserve balances towards foreign banks."
Which brings us to point #2: prepare for the Bernanke hearings and possible impeachment. For if it becomes popular knowledge that the Chairman of the Fed, despite explicit instructions to enforce the trickle down of "printed" dollars to US banks, was only concerned about rescuing foreign banks with the $600 billion in excess cash created out of QE2, then all political hell is about to break loose, and not even Democrats will be able to defend Bernanke's actions to a public furious with the complete inability to procure a loan. Any loan. Furthermore the data above proves beyond a reasonable doubt why there has been no excess lending by US banks to US borrowers: none of the cash ever even made it to US banks! This also resolves the mystery of the broken money multiplier and why the velocity of money has imploded.
Implication #3 explains why the US dollar has been as week as it has since the start of QE 2. Instead of repricing the EUR to a fair value, somewhere around parity with the USD, this stealthy fund flow from the US to Europe to the tune of $600 billion has likely resulted in an artificial boost in the european currency to the tune of 2000-3000 pips, keeping it far from its fair value of about 1.1 EURUSD. If this data does not send European (read German) exporters into a blind rage, after the realization that the Fed (most certainly with the complicity of the G7) was willing to sacrifice European economic output in order to plug European bank undercapitalization, then nothing will.
But implication #4 is by far the most important. Recall that Bill Gross has long been asking where the cash to purchase bonds come the end of QE 2 would come from. Well, the punditry, in its parroting groupthink stupidity (validated by precisely zero actual research), immediately set forth the thesis that there is no problem: after all banks would simply reverse the process of reserve expansion and use the $750 billion in Cash that will be accumulated by the end of QE 2 on June 30 to purchase US Treasurys.
Wrong.
The above data destroys this thesis completely: since the bulk of the reserve induced bank cash has long since departed US shores and is now being used to ratably fill European bank balance sheet voids, and since US banks have benefited precisely not at all from any of the reserves generated by QE 2, there is exactly zero dry powder for the US Primary Dealers to purchase Treasurys starting July 1.
This observation may well be the missing link that justifies the Gross argument, as it puts to rest any speculation that there is any buyer remaining for Treasurys. Alas: the digital cash generated by the Fed's computers has long since been spent... a few thousand miles east of the US.
Which leads us to implication #5. QE 3 is a certainty. The one thing people focus on during every episode of monetary easing is the change in Fed assets, which courtesy of LSAP means a jump in Treasurys, MBS, Agency paper, or (for the tin foil brigade) ES: the truth is all these are a distraction. The one thing people always forget is the change in Fed liabilities, all of them: currency in circulation, which has barely budged in the past 3 years, and far more importantly- excess reserves, which as this article demonstrates, is the electronic "cash" that goes to needy banks the world over in order to fund this need or that. In fact, it is the need to expand the Fed's liabilities that is and has always been a driver of monetary stimulus, not the need to boost Fed assets. The latter is, counterintuitively, merely a mathematical aftereffect of matching an asset-for-liability expansion. This means that as banks are about to face yet another risk flaring episode in the next several months, the Fed will need to release another $500-$1000 billion in excess reserves. As to what asset will be used to match this balance sheet expansion, why take your picK; the Fed could buy MBS, Muni bonds, Treasurys, or go Japanese, and purchase ETFs, REITs, or just go ahead and outright buy up every underwater mortgage in the US. This side of the ledger is largely irrelevant, and will serve only two functions: to send the S&P surging, and to send the precious metal complex surging2 as it becomes clear that the dollar is now entirely worthless.
That said, of all of the above, the one we are most looking forward to is the impeachment of Ben Bernanke: because if there is one definitive proof of the Fed abdicating any and all of its mandates, and merely playing the role of globofunder explicitly at the expense of US consumers and borrowers, not to mention lackey for the banking syndicate, this is it.



P.S.: i più esperti sono pregati di fornire spiegazioni ;)
 
Ultima modifica:
non c'e nessuna spiegazione e' il classico schema Ponzi fatto pero' dalle banche centrali

in questo caso il cetriolo se lo becca l'euro :up:
 
15 - FUGA DAL BOND SANTANDER: SPAGNA SOTTO SHOCK...
Estratto dell'articolo di Luca Davi per il "Sole 24 Ore"
- Per i (pochi) ottimisti si è trattato solo di un episodio, e quindi difficilmente ripetibile. Ma per la maggioranza degli analisti è la dimostrazione di quanto pesi il rischio sovrano sul mercato europeo dei capitali. Certo è che la notizia, diffusa ieri dal Wall Street Journal, che un'emissione di covered bond del Banco Santander abbia trovato compratori solo per circa la metà del valore complessivo, pari a 1 miliardo di euro, non è rinfrancante. Soprattutto se si considera che di norma, quando un'emissione è piazzata per un valore inferiore al 90-95% del totale, è già bollata come deludente.
Il Santander pagava peraltro un premio dell'1,95% sopra il mid-swap, il tasso di riferimento, per attirare gli investitori a comprare un covered bond a 5 anni, con una cedola del 4,625 per cento. Il rating, come è da tradizione per strumenti simili, era altissimo: tripla A, secondo Moody's. Abbastanza, insomma, per ingolosire qualunque investitore. Eppure l'emissione è stata un mezzo fallimento, tanto che le tre banche che hanno curato l'operazione - Commerzbank, Hsbc, e Société Générale - sono state costrette ad assorbire circa la metà dei titoli non acquistati dal mercato.
Il motivo? Tutto è riconducibile al sottostante dei bond della banca spagnola. Le obbligazioni erano infatti garantite da una serie di prestiti concessi dal Santander alle municipalità spagnole. Asset ritenuti evidentemente poco solidi dagli investitori. A minare la fiducia dei mercati è la convinzione che, dopo il crack di Irlanda, Portogallo e Grecia - sui cui pesa l'ipotesi di un nuovo intervento di salvataggio da parte dell'Unione europea - sia ora il turno della Spagna. E delle sue municipalità super-indebitate.
 
quanta tragedia che fanno per cose inutili..
un covered bond è agganciato allo spread spagna germania
in quel momento lo spread è salito e quindi chiaramente il bond è risultato prezzato male.
bastava che andasse a qualche tick in piu di rendimento e lo avrebbero comprato tutti come sempre..
ma vuoi mettere il clamore??
ciao
 
Stocks Cheapest in 26 Years Amid Rising Profits

By Alexis Xydias - Jun 20, 2011
For the second time since the bull market began, profits are surging and stocks are falling.
Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies will earn 18 percent more this year than in 2010, according to the average estimate of more than 9,000 analysts compiled by Bloomberg. Higher profits haven’t stopped the gauge from falling 6.8 percent since April 29, pushing valuations to the cheapest levels in 26 years. Even if companies posted no growth, price-earnings ratios would be lower than on 96 percent of days in the past two decades.
The combination of China raising interest rates, concerns about a Greek default and the end of the Federal Reserve’s $600 billion stimulus program have almost wiped out this year’s gains. The divergence between profit forecasts and economic indicators shows the challenge to investors after the S&P 500gained 88 percent from a 12-year low in March 2009.
“The market is not willing to pay for future growth,”said Nigel Holland, who helps oversee $516 billion at Legal & General Group Plc in London. “Provided there is better data, it will stabilize,” he said. “The market probably has room to rise 10 percent by year-end.”
The S&P 500 climbed less than 0.1 percent to 1,271.50 last week, snapping its longest retreat since 2008, after reports on jobless claims, retail sales and Chinese industrial production exceeded economists’ forecasts and German Chancellor Angela Merkel retreated from demands that bondholders be forced to swallow losses in a Greek rescue.
The S&P 500 fell 0.1 percent to 1,270.31 at 10:18 a.m. inNew York today.
Longest Streaks

Equities also got a boost as retailers Best Buy Co. andKroger Co. (KR) said they would match or exceed predictions for 2011 income. The advance pared the S&P 500’s loss from its 2011 peak of 1,363.61 on April 29 to 92.11 points.
At 34 days, the decrease is the second longest since the bull market began. The 16 percent tumble from April to July 2010 lasted 49 days, Bloomberg data show. This year’s retreat has coincided with a decline in predictions for 2011 gross domestic product growth to 2.6 percent from 3.2 percent, according to the median estimate of 83 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Losses since April have pushed the price of the S&P 500 to 14.5 times the past year’s earnings, compared with the average of 20.5 since June 1991, according to Bloomberg data. The gauge is valued at 8.7 times cash flow, cheaper than in 81 percent of occasions since 1998. The gauge is priced at 2.1 times book value, or assets minus liabilities, lower than it has traded 90 percent of the time since 1995.
Not Excessive

“Even in the assumption that earnings growth is zero, valuations would not be excessively high,” said Patrick Moonen, who helps manage $537 billion at ING Investment Management inThe Hague, Netherlands. “We are below consensus in the estimated earnings growth, and still think the corporate momentum is very strong.”
Disappointing reports since May on housing, employment and manufacturing have heightened concerns that $600 billion in Treasury purchases by the Fed have failed to bolster growth. The S&P 500 posted its biggest weekly decline since August in the period that ended June 3 after the U.S. jobless rate unexpectedly climbed to 9.1 percent and payrolls expanded at the slowest pace in eight months. A report from the Institute for Supply Management on June 1 showed that manufacturing expanded at the lowest rate in more than a year.
Greek Swaps Soar

The cost of insuring against defaults on Greek, Irish and Portuguese government debt surged to records last week on concern governments will fail to impose spending cuts needed for a European Union debt restructuring.
Credit-default swaps on Greece soared as much as 459 basis points to 2,237 on June 16, according to CMA prices, meaning it cost more than 2 million euros ($2.9 million) a year to insure 10 million euros worth of the nation’s debt.
They traded at 1,932.75 basis points as of 4:30 p.m. in London on June 17 as Merkel backed down from her demands and said she’d work with the European Central Bank to avoid market disruptions.
Investors are concerned about slowing growth in the U.S. and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis at the same time policy makers in China, the world’s second-largest economy, are trying to cool expansion. The country’s central bank has raised the reserve-requirement ratio for lenders 11 times and boosted interest rates four times since the start of 2010 to keep inflation in check.
Lehman, 1980s

Analysts are boosting profit forecasts even with the global economy showing signs of weakness. S&P 500 earnings may rise to $99.61 a share in 2011 from $84.58 last year and $61.52 in 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s an increase from the forecast of $95.37 on Jan. 3 and $98.70 on April 29, the data show.
Should stocks stay at current prices and the analyst prediction come true, the S&P 500 would trade at 12.8 times income on Dec. 31, the lowest level since 1985 except for the six months after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy in September 2008 and nine months in the late 1980s, according to Bloomberg data. Companies in the S&P 500 are forecast to earn $24.31 this quarter, up from $24.16 at the start of April.
Concern the slowdown will lead to another recession will weigh on stocks even as companies report higher income, said Doug Cliggott, Boston-based equity strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG. He said the S&P 500 will be little changed through year-end.
Not Extreme

“We wouldn’t put the market now as extremely rich or in a sense extremely attractively valued,” Cliggott said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack” with Deirdre Bolton on June 13. “Price-earnings multiples will be at or below their historical averages because of all the uncertainties on future growth.”
Stocks may also have to do without more stimulus from the Fed, which will complete its second round of Treasury purchases this month. While Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said during a June 7 speech in Atlanta that record monetary stimulus is still needed to boost the “frustratingly slow” U.S. economic recovery, he gave no indication that the central bank will start a third round of so-called quantitative easing.
Retreats in the S&P 500 that exceed 5 percent are common during bull markets, according to data from Birinyi Associates Inc., the Westport, Connecticut-based money manager and research firm. During the nine rallies between 1962 and 2007, the S&P 500 fell that much an average of seven times, the data show. The index has posted nine such retreats during the current advance.
‘Strong Backbone’

Global investors increased their cash holdings to the highest level in a year this month as hedge funds slashed the amount of borrowed money invested in stocks, a survey from Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s Merrill Lynch unit showed on June 14.
“Valuation is a strong backbone,” ABN Amro Private Banking Chief Investment Officer Didier Duret, who manages about $200 billion in Geneva, said in a telephone interview. “It’s more or less a reflection of how reluctant investors have been to get back into the equity market.”
Kroger in Cincinnati rose 4.5 percent, the most since October 2009, to $23.99 on June 16. The largest U.S. grocery chain increased its fiscal 2012 earnings forecast to as much as $1.95 a share from $1.92. Analysts, on average, estimated $1.90.
Best Buy, the world’s biggest consumer-electronics retailer, rallied 4.6 percent two days earlier after reporting profit that exceeded analysts’ forecasts, helped by rising demand for smartphones. The Richfield, Minnesota-based company reiterated its full-year projection for earnings per share of $3.30 to $3.55, excluding restructuring costs. Analysts predicted $3.47.
To Alison Porter at Ignis Asset Management, stocks have priced in prospects for a Greek default and the end of the Fed’s bond-buying program.
“We are seeing stable growth, but it is not a strong cyclical recovery,” said Porter, who as U.S. equities fund manager in Glasgow helps oversee $123 billion. Still,“valuations in the market should provide some support,” she said. “Equities are reasonably well positioned from here.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Alexis Xydias in London at [email protected]
 
Banks Holding Record $1.45 Trillion to Buy Treasuries as Savings Top Loans

By Masaki Kondo, Yoshiaki Nohara and Saburo Funabiki - Jun 20, 2011
Japan’s biggest bond investors see increasing parallels between the nation’s government debt market and Treasuries, indicating that historically low yields in the U.S. have room to fall.
Just as in Japan, deposits at U.S. banks exceed loans, reaching a record $1.45 trillion last month, Federal Reserve data show. As recently as 2008, there were more loans than deposits. The gap is also at an all-time high in Japan, where banks use the money to buy bonds, helping keep yields the lowest in the world even though the country has more debt outstanding than America and a lower credit rating.
While none of the more than 40 economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect the U.S. will see two decades of stagnation like Japan, they are paring growth estimates as unemployment remains above 9 percent and the housing market struggles to recover. The International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for U.S. growth in 2011 for the second time in two months on June 17, bolstering the appeal of fixed-income assets.
“I’ve seen what happened in Japan, so when looking at the U.S. now, I think, ‘Ah, the same thing is going on,’” said Akira Takei, the Tokyo-based general manager of the international fixed-income investment department at Mizuho Asset Management Co., which oversees about $41 billion.
Savings Increase

In the decade before credit markets seized up in 2008, U.S. deposits exceeded loans by an average of about $100 billion, Fed data show. The worst recession since the 1930s led consumers to trim household debt to $13.3 trillion from the peak of $13.9 trillion in 2008, and increase savings to 4.9 percent of incomes from 1.7 percent in 2007, Fed and government data show.
Banks pared lending amid more than $2 trillion in losses and writedowns, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Instead of making loans, financial institutions have put more cash into Treasuries and government-related debt, boosting holdings to $1.68 trillion from $1.08 trillion in early 2008, Fed data show.
Yields on 10-year Treasuries -- the benchmark for everything from corporate bonds to mortgage rates -- have fallen to less than 3 percent from the average of 6.79 percent over the past 30 years even though the amount of marketable U.S. government debt outstanding has risen to $9.26 trillion from $4.34 trillion in 2007, Treasury Department data show.
Lending Drop

Ten-year yields fell 2.5 basis points, or 0.025 percentage point, last week to 2.94 percent in New York, the fifth straight weekly decline, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. The price of the 3.125 percent security due in May 2021 rose 7/32, or $2.19 per $1,000 face amount, to 101 17/32.
Loans dropped and savings rose in Japan, too. Lending has declined 27 percent from the peak in March 1996, while bank holdings of government debt surged more than fivefold to a record 158.8 trillion yen ($1.98 trillion) in April, according to the Bank of Japan. The difference in deposits and loans, known domestically as the yotai gap, is 165 trillion yen, or more than Spain’s annual economic output.
Yields on Japanese bonds due in 10 years dropped to 1.115 percent last week from 3.46 percent in 1996 and have remained at about 2 percent or lower since 2000. U.S. 10-year yields fell three basis points to 2.92 percent as of 10:20 a.m. in London, while similar maturity Japanese yields were little changed at 1.13 percent.
Rates Outlook

The U.S. and Japan are “beginning to look similar because of the fact that we’ve had very low interest rates for a very long time now” Charles Comiskey, the head of Treasury trading at Bank of Nova Scotia in New York, said in an interview. “This is going to be 10 years of pain to de-lever ourselves from the mess of a debt-ridden society that we’ve become.”
Futures traded on the Chicago Board of Exchange indicated in January that the Fed would raise its target rate for overnight loans between banks from a record low of zero to 0.25 percent in 2011. After reports this month showed that the jobless rate rose back above 9 percent, consumer confidencefell, the housing market weakened and manufacturing slowed, traders now see no increase until late 2012 at the earliest.
The IMF said the U.S. economy will grow 2.5 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2012, down from the 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent projected in April.
Further declines in Treasury yields may be limited because the inflation rate is higher than in Japan, where consumer price changes have been mostly negative since 2000.
U.S. prices rose 3.6 percent in May from a year earlier, according to the Labor Department. That means 10-year Treasuries yield 62 basis points less than the inflation rate. So-called real yields in Japan, where consumer prices rose 0.3 percent in April, are a positive 82 basis points.
Pimco Avoids

“Treasury bonds at the current valuation would likely disappoint long-term investors with low or even negative real returns,” Tomoya Masanao, the head of portfolio management for Japan at Pacific Investment Management Co., wrote in an e-mail to Bloomberg News. “The global economy seems more tilted to inflation than deflation over the next three to five years.”
Pimco, based in Newport Beach, California, had $1.28 trillion under management as of March 31, including the world’s biggest bond fund, the Total Return Fund. Bill Gross, the firm’s co-chief investment officer, has said mortgages, corporate bonds and sovereign debt of nations such as Canada are more attractive.
The median estimate of more than 50 economists and strategists surveyed by Bloomberg is for 10-year Treasury yields to rise to 4 percent over the next 12 months.
Weak Housing Market

Those forecasts fail to take into account the weak U.S. housing market, which makes up the bulk of Americans’ net worth, according to Akio Kato, the team leader for Japanese debt inTokyo at Kokusai Asset Management Co., which runs the $31.1 billion Global Sovereign Open fund.
“U.S. home prices won’t rebound unless household debt” is reduced, Kato said. “As long as the situation remains the same, bank lending won’t grow. U.S. banks will tighten criteria for borrowers.”
House prices in 20 U.S. cities are 14 percent below the average of the past decade, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values. The gauge dropped in March to the lowest level since 2003. Japan’s land prices are still at less than half the level of two decades ago.
Japan has endured two decades of economic stagnation with nominal gross domestic product about the same as it was in 1991. Government debt is projected to reach 219 percent of GDP next year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates. That compares with about 59 percent in the U.S., government data show.
BOJ Nullified

The economy has struggled to recover even though the BOJ buys government securities monthly to lower borrowing costs and stimulate the economy. The efforts have been nullified as banks use BOJ funds to buy bonds rather than lend.
“With no prospects for Japan’s economic growth, funds from the widening loan-deposit gap flow to bonds rather than stocks,” said Katsutoshi Inadome, a strategist in Tokyo at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., a unit of the nation’s largest listed-bank.
That’s similar to the U.S., where economists are cutting growth forecasts even though the Fed has pumped almost $600 billion into the financial system since November by purchasing Treasuries under a policy known as quantitative easing. The program is due to end this week.
Mizuho’s Takei said there is a “very high chance” that lenders will continue to funnel deposits to the bond market, helping to push Treasury 10-year yields toward 2.4 percent within a few months. Takei said he favors longer-maturity securities.
“Eventually, yields in Japan and the U.S. will converge,”said Mizuho’s Takei. “This is just the beginning.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Masaki Kondo in Singapore at [email protected]; Yoshiaki Nohara in Tokyo at [email protected]; Saburo Funabiki in Tokyo at [email protected]
 
Come sarà l'economia nel secondo semestre?

Dopo un paio di mesi difficili, la settimana scorsa abbiamo visto una serie di dati macroeconomici in grado di suscitare un maggior ottimismo.
L'articolo sotto postato analizza in qualche dettaglio il dato ISM di venerdì scorso, in coincidenza del quale le borse mondiali hanno segnato una notevole accelerazione. Non mancano, come al solito, luci e ombre. Le notizie della prossima settimana, in particolare i dati sull'occupazione che saranno resi noti venerdì prossimo, ci daranno qualche indicazione in più su dove sta andando l'economia USA (e di riflesso quella mondiale). Poi toccherà a noi decidere dove investire: azionario o bonds? TV oppure TF? Assets rischiosi oppure safe havens?

Surprise Factory Growth Doesn't End Debate on 'Soft Patch'
Published: Friday, 1 Jul 2011 | 4:40 PM ET Text Size
By: Patti Domm
CNBC Executive News Editor

June's surprise pickup in manufacturing activity makes it more likely the economy's soft patch is the result of temporary forces, and growth should pick up in the second half, economists say.

But that is where the agreement among economists ends, with forecasters split on what level of growth can be achieved. Some still see a paltry 2 percent, which would not produce jobs, while others are closer to 3.5 percent for the second half.

The Institute for Supply Management said Friday its index of manufacturing activity rose to 55.3 in June, from May's 53.5, which had been the slowest rate in 20 months. The June level surpassed economists' expectations of 51.8, triggering another move up in an already rallying stock market.


"Today's ISM report helps make the case even clearer that the economy was affected by the disruption from the Japanese disaster and it's possible there's going to be some elements of strength from the recovery that are even earlier than we expected," said Citigroup economist Steven Wieting.

The impact on the auto industry resulted in a shutdown in production and the loss of sales, as shipments of vehicles and parts from Japan were curtailed after the earth quake and tsunami.

Economists urge caution about the ISM number, however, since some of the components are less robust than the headline suggests. For instance, production edged up just slightly to 54.5 from 54. New orders were up slightly to 51.6 from 51 in May, while order backlog slipped to 49 from 50.5.

The index got a boost from a jump in inventories to 54.1 from 48.7, while prices paid slipped to 68 in June from 76.5 in May, as commodities prices fell. A positive was the employment index, which rose to 59.9 form 58.2.

"The details weren't spectacularly good. The order index was just above 50. The blacklog of orders fell slightly. Most of the improvement came from higher inventories, compared to what we were seeing," said Nigel Gault, IHS Global Insight chief U.S. economist.

"This is still pointing to growth, so that's good news, and it will encourage hopes that the negative effects of high commodities prices and of Japan's natural disaster may be starting to ease some, and that we can look for better growth in the second half."


The next hurdle for markets is the June jobs report, expected next Friday. Economists are setting their sights low, and several have expectations for 100,000 jobs created in June.

"100,000 is still lackluster, but it's better than 54,000 (May) and it's a move in the right direction. If we're right about the economy doing better in the second half, employment growth is expected to improve and go to the 150,000-200,000 area" later in the summer, Gault said.

Gault expects second half growth of 3.5 percent, up from the 2 percent he expects for the second quarter. First quarter growth was revised up to 1.9 percent.

"We're going to have to see better reports than this (ISM) if we're going to see 3.5 percent in the second half. This does not seal the case. It is a report that will be consistent with that view, but it's not proof," he said.



RDQ chief economist John Ryding sees the report largely as a sign of less deterioration. "The plunge in the May ISM was alarming and it is somewhat reassuring to see this partial rebound in June. However, the details of the report were far less strong than the headline index as 1.1 point of the 1.8-point gain in the overall index came from an inventory build by manufacturers and customer inventories are much closer to being at desired levels than they have been in over two years," he wrote in a note.

"Easing inflation pressures likely reflect lower energy prices and a pullback in some industrial commodity prices (but at 68, these input cost pressures are still very significant). We score this report as arguing strongly against a further deterioration in growth but more agnostic between the view that the economy is in a soft patch from which it will strengthen (our baseline forecast) and the view that the expansion pace of growth has downshifted to 2 percent-2.5 percent," he wrote.
 
Ultima modifica:
Redazione Borsainside.com - domenica, 3 luglio 2011 - 18:43
L'Eurogruppo, riunitosi in una teleconferenza, ha formalizzato la concessione della quinta tranche di aiuti alla Grecia. Atene ha in questo modo evitato, per ora, la bancarotta. L'accordo tra i paesi della zona euro era stato già raggiunto dopo che il Parlamento greco aveva definitivamente approvato giovedì il nuovo piano di austerità da circa €28 miliardi. La quinta tranche di aiuti verrà versata entro il 15 luglio dopo l'approvazione da parte dell'FMI. I fondi sbloccati ammontano a €12 miliardi e fanno parte del piano di salvataggio da €110 miliardi lanciato lo scorso anno. La Grecia ha ancora diritto a €45 miliardi, la prossima tranche dovrebbe venir assegnata a settembre. Fino ad allora verranno determinate le modalità di un nuovo piano di salvataggio che potrebbe raggiungere €120 miliardi. Le prime trattative sono attese nel corso della prossima riunione regolare dell'Eurogruppo in programma il prossimo 11 luglio. Wolfgang Schäuble, il Ministro Ministro delle Finanze della Germania, ha avvertito che il Governo greco deve attuare senza indugi le nuove misure di austerità. Le importanti privatizzazioni devono iniziare immediatamente. Jean-Claude Juncker, il Presidente dell'Eurogruppo, ha da parte sua indicato che per assicurarsi i nuovi aiuti la Grecia dovrà rinunciare ad una parte della sua sovranità.
Per ulteriori notizie, analisi e rumors di borsa visita il sito di Borsainside




Trovo inquietanti le dichiarazioni di W. Schauble e Jean Claude Juncker:
si sta imboccandouna strada pericolosa che potrebbe portare alla fame le nazioni periferiche e, alla perdita dei pochi gioielli nazionali rimasti, se non si corre ai ripari!
 
* La fonte e' autorevolissima :D

1- DAGOREPORT: A CHE SERVONO ‘STI TEST?
L'autorità di controllo delle assicurazioni europee, Eiopa (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), ha pubblicato oggi i dati degli stress test sulle compagnie di Unione Europea, Norvegia, Lichtenstein e Islanda. Le stesse società erano state messe alla prova nel 2010, ma stavolta i requisiti sono più stringenti e includono le regole patrimoniali della cosiddetta Solvency II.
STRESS TEST Il 10%, ovvero 13 compagnie, non ha superato i test. In caso di aggravamento della crisi, non avrebbero i soldi per ripagare i propri assicurati, a meno di raccogliere in fretta nuovo capitale.
Le ipotesi di crisi considerate erano 4: stallo dei mercati borsistici, crollo del mercato immobiliare, impennata dell'inflazione, improvvisa salita dello spread sul debito di uno Stato. (dettagli sul sito: https://eiopa.europa.eu/activities/insurance-stress-test/index.html )
Questi test presentano una serie problemi, che li rende più che altro una tardiva prova generale, un sondaggio per farsi un'idea del mercato in generale, e non uno strumento davvero incisivo:
- i risultati sono formulati in maniera aggregata. Non c'è modo di sapere (per ora) quale compagnia assicurativa (e sono 13) avrebbe seri problemi di solvibilità o capitalizzazione se si verificassero gli scenari ipotizzati. Al contrario, gli stress test bancari riveleranno i nomi degli istituti in difficoltà. Solo con questa minaccia, le banche europee - tra cui quelle italiane - si sono affrettate a ricapitalizzarsi in vista dei requisiti di Basilea III;
Eurotower - tra gli scenari, non è stato incluso il default di uno stato sovrano, che è una possibilità sempre più concreta se si leggono i numeri del piano di salvataggio greco, che ha solo rimandato al 2014 (se non molto prima) il momento della verità per Atene;
- i risultati coprono solo il 60% delle società operanti nei mercati analizzati (58 gruppi assicurativi e 71 compagnie). L'obiettivo prefissato, e superato, era il 50%;
- i criteri adottati non sono stati universalmente riconosciuti come validi o attendibili, anzi. L'associazione degli assicuratori inglesi ha definito i test "una distrazione dalle riforme regolatorie che andrebbero approvate" (Association of British Insurers - Stress tests ? Distraction from vital regulatory change )
A che servono insomma ‘sti stress test? Non si capisce. Il capo dell'Eiopa, il portoghese Bernardino, dice che il settore è solido e una crisi sarebbe "gestibile". Ma se davvero si vuole arrivare pronti a una nuova crisi finanziaria, non si può prescindere dal settore assicurativo, e fare per due anni di seguito dei test che usano criteri insoddisfacenti e i cui risultati non avranno nessun effetto concreto sulle politiche delle assicurazioni o sull'opinione pubblica, sembra l'ennesimo spreco di risorse europee.
Gabriel Bernardino Il 13 luglio, quando saranno presentati i risultati degli stress test sulle banche, si capirà cosa può succedere agli istituti finanziari che vengono messi alla prova e davvero mostrati al pubblico ludibrio. Finché non si porrà la stessa minaccia di fronte alle assicurazioni, non avranno nessun incentivo a mettere a posto i loro bilanci.

NOTA DI COLORE: è piuttosto comico il quadro dei regolatori finanziari europei e mondiali. La Banca Centrale Europea passa di mano da Trichet (ovvero Lussemburgo, un imbarazzante paradiso fiscale al centro dell'Europa) a Mario Draghi (ovvero Italia, il paese con la più alta evasione fiscale e il secondo debito pubblico - dopo la Grecia), che è anche capo del Financial Stability Board creato in seno al G20. E in questo passaggio di consegne non si può scordare la figuraccia globale fatta dall'Italia con l'attaccamento alla sua poltrona BCE di Lorenzo Bini Smaghi.
Ma ci sono altre tre istituzioni chiave nella gestione della crisi finanziaria globale, che ora si sta concentrando sull'Eurozona.
Oltre alla Commissione Europea con Barroso, anche l'authority europea delle assicurazioni è capitanata da un portoghese (Bernardino, citato qui sopra), nonostante il Portogallo abbia un'economia minuscola e soffra di una lunghissima stagnazione, ormai diventata crisi nera.
banche europa stress test L'autorità europea delle banche (EBA, che si occupa degli stress test sugli istituti finanziari), è in mano a un altro italiano, ex Banca d'Italia, Andrea Enria.
Ci lamentiamo di essere sottorappresentati all'estero? Ma soprattutto, ci stupiamo quando tedeschi, scandinavi, olandesi, paesi "virtuosi" e non spendaccioni, si incazzano perché le poltrone dei posti chiave finiscono sempre in mano a paesi dell'Europa del Sud?
Morale: le cinque istituzioni più importanti nella risposta alla crisi finanziaria sono in mano a due paesi che sono sinonimo di bassa crescita, evasione fiscale, inefficienza, e spesa pubblica fuori controllo. Forse non sapremo come tenere a posto i bilanci, ma di sicuro sappiamo come tenere il culo sulle poltrone.

2- ASSICURAZIONI EUROPA, CIRCA 10% SOCIETÀ NON SUPERANO STRESS TEST
(Reuters) -
Quasi il 10% delle compagnie assicurative europee avrebbero bisogno di raccogliere capitali freschi in caso di un duro shock economico accompagnato da un forte calo dei corsi azionari, dei tassi di interesse e un crollo del mercato immobiliare.
Andrea Enria Lo sostiene l'autorità di controllo del settore assicurativo europeo Eiopa che ha svelato i risultati di un stress test volto a misurare la capacità di resistenza del settore in condizione di shock economico.
DRAGHI Secondo l'Authority, in questo scenario, tredici società di assicurazione si troverebbero con un deficit patrimoniale complessivo di 4,4 miliardi di euro rispetto al livello minimo di capitale richiesto dai requisiti patrimoniali di Solvency II.
L'Eiopa, che non ha pubblicato i nomi delle società , ha comunque sostenuto che lo scarso ammontare di capitale necessario stimato in uno scenario di stress rispetto ad un eccesso di capitale complessivo di 425 miliardi, dimostra che il settore ha un profilo di patrimonializzazione complessivamente solido.
Bini Smaghi "Questo dimostra che nel complesso il settore assicurativo europeo ha una posizione patrimoniale in grado da garantire un buon assorbimento in caso di shock" ha detto ai giornalisti il presidente dell'Eiopa, Gabriel Bernardino.
barroso "Adesso ogni azienda potrà disporre di un'analisi delle aree in cui sono più esposte e potranno prendere provvedimenti", ha aggiunto. Secondo l'Eiopa, inoltre, sei compagnie si troverebbero ad dovere affrontare un deficit patrimoniale di 2,5 miliardi di euro in uno scenario di un secondo shock accompagnato da un balzo dei rendimenti dell'emissioni sovrane.
Tuttavia, l'esposizione del settore ai bond emessi da paesi periferici della zona euro indebitati in modo critico è "gestibile", ha detto Bernardino.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto