Alan Greenspan: US economy not accelerating by any means

apple.news/Aqu4y8MwuSDGfloJJZU-Ulw

Fox News

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told FOX Business on Thursday that the U.S. economyis poised to slow down very soon.

“Just wait until the fourth quarter number comes out, it’s going to be down around 2.5 percent,” Greenspan said during an exclusive interview with Maria Bartiromo. “We have monthly data which suggests that we are slowing down, we are not going negative, but we are definitely slowing down – the rate of growth as we go into 2019 probably at a 2 to 2.5 percent pace maximum.”

Gross domestic product (GDP) increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, according to a revised estimate from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, but Greenspan said gross domestic savings, which consists of savings of the household, private corporate and public sectors, is a critical factor in determining his outlook.

“Gross domestic savings is the key funding to capital investment in the Unites States, and as a result we are seeing capital investments slowing down,” he said.

Earlier this week, White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett told FOX Business a capital spending boom is giving the U.S. economy momentum.

“A capital spending boom like the one that we’re in usually takes three to five years,” he told Bartiromo. “We’ve had about a 10 percent increase in capital [spending] since this time last year and that should continue if it’s a normal spending boom for the next three to five years.”

However in Greenspan’s opinion, although a recession is unlikely, the U.S. has entered a period of stagflation driven by runaway spending and entitlement programs.

“We are not funding our entitlements and as a result we have this huge deficit – [a] trillion dollar budget deficit,” he said. “You can’t exist with that sort of phenomenon without inflation re-emerging itself.”

The annual inflation rate in the U.S. fell to 2.2 percent in November from 2.5 percent in October, according to the Labor Department.

Julia Limitone is a Senior Web Producer for FOXBusiness.com.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

The recession hiding behind Wall Street’s record highs – The Washington Post

Wall Street may have set new record highs this week, but the rally is masking an uncomfortable truth: Corporate America is still in the midst of recession.

Companies have begun announcing earnings for the second quarter, and the results are not expected to be pretty over the next few weeks. Analytics firm FactSet estimates profits in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index will fall 5.6 percent compared with a year ago — the fifth straight quarter of decline. The contraction has been so prolonged that investors consider it an “earnings recession.”

[Dow follows S&P to record high]

Corporate earnings are supposed to be the bedrock of stock market value, but at the moment, they appear to be pointing in opposite directions. Energy companies have been devastated by falling oil prices. Multinationals have been hamstrung by the stronger dollar. Banks have been hammered by ultralow interest rates.

The gloomy reality comes amid growing warnings that the risk of a full-blown recession is rising — not only for the United States, but also the broader global economy. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is also sowing uncertainty in financial markets and threatening to undermine the recovery in the United Kingdom. One of the most pessimistic forecasts came from Deustche Bank this month, predicting a 60 percent chance of a downturn in the United States over the next year.

That all sounds pretty dismal, and it makes the record highs set this week by both the S&P 500 and the blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average even more perplexing. At least part of the rally — and, some analysts argue, most of it — is the result of the signals from the world’s central banks that the era of easy money is far from over. But investors are also betting that corporate America and the broader economy are turning a corner, if they’re not already back on track.

Many analysts think the earnings contraction that started in the second quarter of 2015 bottomed out early this year. Profits fell 6.7 percent in the first quarter compared with a year ago, which makes the 5.6 percent estimate for this quarter look a little rosier. The outlook for the third quarter is even better, with analysts forecasting a milder decline as oil prices and the U.S. dollar stabilize.
Then there was a blockbuster report from the Labor Department showing rock-solid job growth of 287,000 jobs in June. That gave many investors confidence that the U.S. economy was weathering the global storm, especially after the exceptionally weak addition of just 11,000 jobs in May. On top of that, a new prime minister has been selected in Britain, a step toward resolving the political turmoil that has roiled markets.

[Opinion: Theresa May must contain the Brexit damage — and more]

Anthony Valeri, investment strategist for LPL Financial, analyzed the S&P’s 12 earnings recessions since 1954. Nine of them were accompanied by economic recessions a year before or after, although the depth and duration of the downturns varied widely.

Three earnings recessions have not been tied to broader distress. The first two occurred in 1967 and 1985, which he notes are periods in which the federal deficit was increasing, rather than decreasing as it is now.

The third is the one we’re in right now, and it is not done playing out.

 

New From Credit Suisse: Bonds for Self-Inflicted Catastrophes

Sagacious LLC will help customize a similar program to save op risk regulatory capital at your institution. 

By ANUPREETA DAS and LESLIE SCISM
May 16, 2016 1:21 p.m. ET WSJ

Credit Suisse Group AG is going to give it a try in the bond market. The bank plans as early as this week to launch unusual new securities that would pay investors relatively high interest rates. The catch is Credit Suisse could take their principal if incidents like rogue trading, information-technology breakdowns or even accounting errors lead to massive losses for the bank, people familiar with the offering said.

The deal is a first-of-its-kind twist on the “catastrophe bonds” that insurers have used for years to lay off the risk of natural disasters like hurricanes. Credit Suisse’s offering covers self-inflicted disasters as well as external events and has been marketed to hedge funds and other big investors.

The insurance feature of the bonds would be triggered if Credit Suisse’s annual operational risk-related losses cross $3.5 billion. Buyers have a level of comfort, however, because it’s a “second-event” bond. The most any single event could contribute to the trigger is $3 billion, meaning it would take more than one event to cross the threshold. The odds of that are remote: Credit Suisse has put them at roughly 1 in 500, the people said.

A Credit Suisse spokeswoman declined to comment.
The appetite for such offerings in the capital markets, as persistently low interest rates send investors searching for higher yields, is encouraging Wall Street companies to test new uses for the structure.

MORE

Heard on the Street: Credit Suisse Takes Out Insurance on Itself
Insurance-industry executives said that they haven’t previously seen a bank attempting to tap capital markets to cover this type of risk. The move has its roots in regulation. Under European bank rules, banks must calculate operational risk and may use insurance products as part of meeting their capital requirements, according to industry participants.

In general, operational risk is the possibility of losses resulting from insufficient internal controls, errant systems or rogue employees. The Credit Suisse offering doesn’t cover market losses from trading that is authorized by the bank, some of the people familiar with the matter said.

Paul Schultz, chief executive of the Aon Securities unit of global insurance brokerage Aon PLC, said an offering like Credit Suisse’s reflects “growing investor sophistication on the underwriting side and a general view that to continue to grow the asset class, investors are going to have to expand from simply writing property risk.”

Zurich-based Credit Suisse, via a Bermuda company called Operational Re, plans to issue a five-year bond of up to 630 million Swiss francs ($646 million) to qualified institutional buyers such as hedge funds, asset managers and firms that pool together capital from pension funds. The bonds are part of a planned package that includes an insurance policy of up to 700 million francs issued by Zurich Insurance Group. Most of the cost of any claim would be paid for by the bonds. The size of the bond offering and the policy limits ultimately will be determined by investor interest, the people said. A spokeswoman for Zurich said the company’s policy is not to comment on current or potential commercial relationships.

The coupon is expected to be in the “mid-single digits,” one of the people said—higher than what Credit Suisse was initially planning, in order to entice investors to buy the novel security.

Credit Suisse last week reported a first-quarter net loss of 302 million francs, compared with a profit of 1.05 billion francs in the same period last year. The bank’s new chief executive, Tidjane Thiam, has been retooling the bank away from its investment-banking business toward its more stable wealth-management unit.

European banks have long used insurance products to meet capital requirements set by regulators or to unload risk from their balance sheets. Before the financial crisis, giant insurer American International Group Inc. sold financial derivatives known as credit-default swaps to major European banks as insurance against losses in their holdings of subprime mortgage assets. AIG’s near collapse in 2008 in the wake of the housing-bubble burst was tied to the massive volume of credit-default swaps it had sold.

As for Credit Suisse’s new bond, the bank can’t call on the money to cover regulatory liabilities or government fines, the people said. Losses from rogue trading, which have hobbled large banks such as Société Générale and UBS Group AG in recent years, could be covered by the insurance provided by the bond, but any fines stemming from it wouldn’t be, they said.

Write to Anupreeta Das at anupreeta.das@wsj.com and Leslie Scism at leslie.scism@wsj.com

Sagacious LLC can customize a disaster bond for your institution.

What is the amount of Operational Risk Capital at Your Bank?

Civil Antitrust Lawsuits Reinstated Against 16 Banks in Libor Case
May 23, 2016 By Nicole Hong, WSJ
Appeals court restores private suits against Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others
The lawsuits accuse 16 major banks—including Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America—of collusion in manipulating the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to the detriment of the banks’ consumers.

In a setback for some of the world’s largest financial institutions, a U.S. appeals court on Monday reinstated the private antitrust lawsuits filed against 16 banks for allegedly rigging Libor interest rates.

The ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reverses a lower court decision from 2013, in which U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald dismissed the claims because she said the banks’ alleged conduct did not violate federal antitrust laws.

The lawsuits accuse 16 major banks—including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.—of collusion in manipulating the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to the detriment of the banks’ consumers.

The plaintiffs, who owned various financial instruments that were affected by Libor, claim the returns on their investments were depressed by the banks’ collusion. The lawsuits were filed by several groups of plaintiffs, including the local governments of cities like Baltimore, San Diego and Houston.

Judge Buchwald had dismissed the antitrust claims, saying the plaintiffs failed to show they were injured by the alleged rate manipulation. She said that because setting Libor was a “cooperative endeavor,” there could be no anticompetitive harm to consumers.

But the appeals court Monday disagreed and kicked the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. A three-judge panel found that the plaintiffs did show an antitrust injury “by alleging that they paid artificially fixed higher prices.”

Judge Buchwald in 2013 had allowed other claims by the plaintiffs to proceed, including allegations that the banks breached commodities laws, but the antitrust claims were a central part of the litigation, as violations can require a defendant to pay triple damages.

The appellate judges noted that the plaintiffs will still have to prove at a later stage whether the allegedly corrupt Libor rate did have an influence on the prices of their financial investments.

If this litigation is ultimately successful, the potential total bill to banks could be in the billions, analysts have estimated.

A lawyer representing the banks declined to comment, while a lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Libor, a widely used benchmark that helps set interest rates for everything from mortgages to corporate loans, is calculated daily for different currencies based on estimated borrowing rates submitted by banks on panels. The lawsuits are targeting banks on the panel that sets U.S. dollar rates under Libor.

These private lawsuits are separate from the sprawling criminal and civil probes around Libor rigging, which began in 2008 and have implicated traders around the world. Regulators have accused big banks of letting their traders and executives raise Libor rates up or down to benefit their trading positions.

About a dozen financial firms have settled charges of manipulating Libor, and many have pleaded guilty to criminal charges. The largest penalty imposed was the $2.5 billion paid by Deutsche Bank AG last year.

In total, U.K. and U.S. authorities have imposed sanctions of more than $6 billion in the Libor cases. A series of global investigations are still ongoing, but The Wall Street Journal reported in February that regulators in the U.S. and U.K. are preparing to bring a final round of civil charges against several banks in the probe.

Write to Nicole Hong at nicole.hong@wsj.com

JPMorgan’s Dimon Says Violent Moves in Treasuries Are Possible – Bloomberg Business

Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase CEO says the Treasury market is one thing he worries about

Comments aren’t a prediction, just a possibility, Dimon says

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Share on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Google+E-mail

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s chief executive officer, said the bank will be prepared for the possibility that Treasury prices move violently when interest rates rise.
“The one thing I do worry a little bit about, by the way, is Treasuries,” Dimon said Friday at a conference in New York sponsored by Barclays Plc. “Interest rates have been so low, for so long,” he said, adding that some traders and their managers have never experienced a rising interest-rate environment.
The U.S. banking system is much safer now because of higher capital and business diversification, said Dimon, 59, responding to a question about whether the next U.S. credit downturn would come from banks or non-banks. In April, he called volatility in the Treasury market in late 2014 a “warning shot” to investors.
“So I wouldn’t be shocked to see 10-year Treasuries, when rates are going up, people change their mind, they change direction, that they will be violently volatile and go up much faster than people think,” Dimon said. “I’m not predicting that. I’m simply saying in the back of my mind, I think that’s a possibility.”
His comments followed the biggest single-day rally in six years for two-year Treasuries. After the Federal Reserve announced Thursday it would keep interest rates near zero, yields on the policy-sensitive note dropped by 13 basis points, the steepest decline since the central bank announced it would expand its bond-buying program in March 2009. The rate on 10-year notes fell 10 basis points to 2.19 percent.
JPMorgan has “about the same” third-quarter trading-revenue trends as other banks that have disclosed expectations at the conference, Dimon said. Executives from Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. have said they probably will report a 5 percent drop in third-quarter trading revenue.
“September is still to go, so who knows,” Dimon said. “I think people are massively over-focused on those numbers.”
Markets

James Dimon

JPMorgan Chase & Co

Interest Rates

New York

Barclays PLC

Flash Move Haunts Bond Traders Heeding Dimon’s Warning of Crisis

Flash Move Haunts Bond Traders Heeding Dimon’s Warning of Crisis

Jamie Dimon, Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Six months after an unexplained flash rally in Treasuries sent markets reeling, bond investors are bracing for it to happen again.

Prudential Investment Management is trading more futures because they’re both liquid and anonymous. State Street Corp. is making smaller bets. And Pioneer Investments is looking for returns in higher-quality securities that are easier to sell.

On Oct. 15, benchmark Treasury yields swung the most relative to overall yields since at least 2000, scarring debt investors who say they’re still trying to figure out why it happened. JPMorgan Chase & Co. chief Jamie Dimon called the move a “warning shot” last week, blaming it on central-bank hoarding of bonds along with regulations that have led dealers to retreat from making markets. Others say the rise of electronic trading is at fault.

Whatever the reason, those trends aren’t changing as the Federal Reserve prepares to raise interest rates for the first time since 2006. Bets on market swings suggest traders expect prices to fluctuate the most of any year since 2011, raising the risk of another flash move.

“There’s potential for extreme conditions in the marketplace when volatility really goes up,” said Steven Meier, head of cash, currency and fixed-income at Boston-based State Street’s money-management unit. “There’s still a lot of unanswered questions about what happened,” and no “clear explanation of what the drivers were.”

Yield Swings

Bond trading has been turbulent this year, driven by uneven economic data, currency moves and Fed changes to its interest-rate forecasts. Yields on 10-year Treasuries have swung from 1.64 percent to 2.26 percent.

Treasuries are the world’s haven asset during turmoil because the securities are supposed to be the most liquid. A market that’s more prone to gyrations has the potential to boost borrowing costs for taxpayers, consumers and companies — in addition to making it harder for the Fed to exit from its record stimulus.

Dimon isn’t the only one warning episodes such as the one on Oct. 15 may happen again. The Treasury Markets Practices Group — an advisory committee on bond-market integrity backed by the Fed Bank of New York — echoed the idea at its February meeting.

Electronic Trading

“There is an increased potential for further episodes of volatility and impaired liquidity in the Treasury markets,” the meeting minutes said. The committee concluded that the move was exacerbated by the dealers’ pullback from the market and growth in electronic trading.

Last year, 48 percent of U.S. Treasury trading happened electronically, according to a survey from Greenwich Associates, up from 33 percent a decade ago. The TMPG said in a paper last week that the trend has improved liquidity, while creating added risks, too.

“In some cases, malfunctioning algorithms have interfered with market functioning, inundating trading venues with message traffic or creating sharp, short-lived spikes in prices,” the group said in an April 9 paper.

Calvert Investments money manager Matthew Duch said the mystery of the flash rally leaves him in a tough spot. He wants to buy more high-yield bonds, but said he’s worried about the possibility that a Treasury-market swing could spark broader volatility, making it tough to trade the speculative-grade debt.

Yield Starved

“Are you getting compensated for the risk? Uh, maybe not,” Duch, whose firm manages $13 billion, said in a telephone interview from his Bethesda, Maryland, office. “But in this yield-starved environment, it’s difficult to find other places to put your money.”

Part of the reason trading has gotten bumpier is that banks are stepping back from market-making, according to Jeffrey Snider, chief investment strategist at West Palm Beach, Florida-based Alhambra Investment Partners LLC.

That’s shown up in the market for short-term financing, known as repurchase agreements or repos, which help grease the wheels for bond trading. The amount of securities financed through a part of the market known as tri-party repo is down 15 percent since December 2012, and more than 41 percent from its 2008 high.

“Funding has just fallen off a cliff,” Snider said. “The system is searching for a stable state, but it hasn’t been able to find one yet.”

BlackRock View

Not everyone is worried that it’s too hard to trade debt these days.

“We feel pretty comfortable with the liquidity,” Michael Fredericks, head of retail multi-asset client solutions for New York-based BlackRock Inc., said by telephone. Fredericks, who manages the $11.5 billion BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Fund, said he’s more worried that investors have gotten complacent about long-term rates staying low.

State Street’s Meier said he is concerned about being able to efficiently trade his holdings, and is making smaller bond trades as a result. Last year, his company recommended clients build up their cash positions and consider derivatives bets, such as swaps and futures.

Interest-rate futures — which are essentially an agreement to buy or sell rates at a later date — have been getting more popular in part because they trade through a clearinghouse, reducing counterparty risk. Trading was up 12 percent in the first three months of the year from the same period in 2014, according to CME Group Inc.

Liquidity Drop

Erik Schiller, a money manager for Prudential’s $533 billion fixed-income unit, said he’s been using futures more because they offer fast and anonymous trade execution during big market swings.

“There’s the potential for these types of moves to happen,” he said. “The liquidity providers in the bond market are less now than they’ve ever been.”

One measure of Treasury dealers’ trading activity has fallen closer to its financial-crisis levels. Deutsche Bank AG’s index that gauges liquidity by comparing the three-month average size of dealer trades against moves in the 10-year note’s yield fell to about 25 in February. It was above 500 in 2005, and reached as low as 19 in 2009 during the depths of the financial crisis.

“If liquidity is as bad as it is now, what’s going to happen when things really get adverse?” said Richard Schlanger, who co-manages about $30 billion in bonds as vice president at Pioneer Investments in Boston. “That’s why we’re trying to get in front of this and buy really good, liquid names.”

More articles on Markets

Russia’s fast track to ruin DECEMBER 16, 2014 AT 1:26 AM BBC

Here are the numbers that explain why the Russian economy is imploding in the face of a tumbling oil price and Western sanctions.
Oil and gas energy represents two thirds of exports of around $530bn (£339bn). Without them, Russia would have a massive deficit on its trade and financial dealings with the rest of the world – which is why Russia’s central bank expects a capital outflow of well over $100bn this year and next.

And public expenditure is almost completely supported by energy-related revenues. In their absence, the government would be increasing its indebtedness by more than 10% a year, according to IMF data.

So the massive and unsustainable non-oil deficits in the public sector and trade explain why investors don’t want to touch the rouble with even the longest barge pole.
And Western sanctions, imposed to punish Putin for his Ukraine adventure, make it all the harder for Russia’s undersized non-oil economy to trade the country out of its mess.
Desperate government?

Little wonder then that the rouble has halved this year, more-or-less in line with the tumbling oil price.

That raises the spectre of rampant inflation – prices are already rising more than 9% a year on the backward-looking official measure.
And there is the twin nightmare of a fully fledged slump: Russia’s central bank expects the economy to contract not far off 5% next year.

But even so the decision of Russia’s central bank to raise its policy interest rate from 10.5% to 17% is eye-catching (ahem).
It might work to stem the rouble’s fall. Then again it could reinforce investors’ fears that the government is increasingly desperate and powerless in the face of a market tsunami.
Global ripples

Russia isn’t bust yet. In the middle of the year, it was projected by the IMF to hold reserves equivalent to about a year’s worth of imports. That will probably be down to nearer 10 months now, but provides some kind of cushion.

What does it mean for the rest of us? Well it doesn’t help that Russia is sucking demand from a global economy that is already looking a bit more ropey, as the eurozone stagnates and China slows.

As for the exposure of overseas banks – at $364bn, including guarantees – that is serious but not existentially threatening (and loans made by UK banks are just a few percentage points of that).

There are also about half a trillion dollars of Russian bonds trading, with about a third of those issued by the government. Most of those will be viewed by investors as junk, even if they are not officially classified as such by the rating agencies.

Or to pull it all together, Russia is massively leaking cash. And absent an entente with the West over Ukraine, which does not look imminent, it is challenging to see how the hole can be plugged.

Currency Markets Jolted After Months of Calm

Currency Markets Jolted After Months of Calm

Volatility Rises as Investors Focus on Interest-Rate Divergence

By ANJANI TRIVEDI and IRA IOSEBASHVILI WSJ

After months of calm, currency markets have sprung back to life, as investors scramble to take advantage of the divergent paths taken by major central banks.

Bigger and more-frequent shifts in the foreign-exchange market are a welcome relief for investors, many of whom struggled to make profitable trades when currencies weren’t moving as dramatically.

Banks, whose currency desks execute trades on behalf of clients and companies, also see revenues grow when choppier markets drive up demand for their services.

“This definitely brightens my day,” said Chris Stanton, who oversees about $200 million at California-based Sunrise Capital Partners LLC. “It’s a welcome return to what feels like a freer market.”

More Reading

The size of daily trading swings across currencies has jumped 55% since hitting its lowest in at least a decade on July 31, according to Deutsche Bank AG. During that time, the dollar climbed to a six-year high against the yen, the euro fell below $1.30 for the first time since July 2013 and the pound tumbled to a 10-month low against the dollar. On Wednesday, the Swiss franc saw its biggest drop against the euro in six months.

Driving the price swings is a shift in policies at some of the world’s largest central banks. A burgeoning recovery in the U.S. has brought the Federal Reserve closer to raising rates, a move that would make the dollar more attractive to investors. At the same time, European and Japanese central banks are still trying to kickstart their economies and relying on policies such as bond buying that tend to drive down interest rates and reduce the value of a currency.

Implied volatility, which tracks the price of options used to protect against swings in exchange rates, has surged 45% in September to an eight-month high, according to Deutsche Bank. Higher implied volatility suggests money managers are buying options in anticipation of a more-active market.

Some money managers are buying the dollar ahead of next week’s Fed meeting, where policy makers could send firmer signals on their outlook for interest rates. Mr. Stanton’s fund is betting that the dollar will continue to strengthen against the yen and emerging-market currencies as the Fed gets closer to raising interest rates.

Citigroup Inc., C +1.11% the world’s largest currencies-dealing bank, on Monday said its markets revenue, which includes currency trading, is on track to be roughly flat in the third quarter compared with the same period in 2013, ending a decline that started a year ago.

Enlarge Image

Until recently, unusually calm markets had left investors with fewer opportunities to trade and led to the demise of several large currency funds. FX Concepts LLC, founded in 1981 and considered a pioneer in currency investing, closed its doors last year after assets shriveled to $660 million from $14 billion before the financial crisis.

Currency volatility plummeted after the financial crisis, as the world’s biggest central banks cut interest rates to near zero. That gave traders little incentive to try and capture the difference in interest rates between various currencies, a key driver of activity in the foreign-exchange market.

That status quo has started to crack. Minutes from the Fed’s July meeting showed growing support for raising rates, spurring gains in the dollar when they were released in August. Earlier this month, the ECB surprised investors with a rate cut, bringing down the euro. Meantime, the pound tumbled on concerns over the repercussions from Scotland’s possible secession. On Wednesday, the Swiss National Bank said that it could introduce negative interest rates to halt the franc’s rise.

Trading bands of some major currencies have widened this summer, opening the door to bigger profits for investors. So far in September, the dollar is moving on average by 0.70 yen a day, the biggest range since February and up from 0.35 in July. Daily moves in the euro this month are averaging 0.79 U.S. cent, compared with 0.4 cent in July.

“Now, there are more opportunities to make money,” said Masafumi Takada, vice president of currency trading at BNP Paribas SA BNP.FR -0.39% in New York. Business volume at the bank’s New York currency-trading desk has quadrupled since July, Mr. Takada said.

Currency volatility can be a double-edged sword. Investors can profit by riding the dollar’s steady move higher against a variety of currencies. But a sudden reversal—such as a surge in the pound if Scotland votes against independence—could catch traders off guard. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +1.39% took a loss on an options trade involving the dollar and yen about a year ago, people familiar with the matter said. Last summer, the yen’s months-long decline had stalled.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen attends a Board of Governors meeting at the Federal Reserve in Washington last week. Associated Press

Some traders believe the current bout of volatility may die down. The large moves seen this week are unusual, analysts say.

On Wednesday, the euro fell 0.2% to $1.2917, while the dollar rose 0.6% against the yen to 106.85. The pound rebounded, with the dollar falling 0.64% against the British currency.

“The question is whether or not this much of a jump [in volatility] is sensible,” said Geoff Kendrick, head of foreign-exchange and rates strategy in Asia at Morgan Stanley MS +1.24% in Hong Kong.

Still, many find it hard to imagine that the magnitude of the Fed’s policy shift won’t continue sending waves across currency markets.

“The dollar’s on a tear, and there is more of this to come,” said Kit Juckes, a strategist at Société Générale SA.

—Justin Baer and Saabira Chaudhuri contributed to this article.

Write to Anjani Trivedi at anjani.trivedi@wsj.com and Ira Iosebashvili at ira.iosebashvili@wsj.com

MARC FABER: We’re In A Gigantic Financial Asset Bubble That Could Burst Any Day

MARC FABER: We’re In A Gigantic Financial Asset Bubble That Could Burst Any Day
MAMTA BADKAR
JAN. 14, 2014, 7:02 PM 11,190

As stocks returned a whopping 30% in 2013, there have been growing concerns about a stock market bubble. Especially considering that the rally supported by only meager earnings growth.
While many have made comprehensive arguments showing why stocks are not in a bubble, Marc Faber, author of “The Gloom Boom And Doom Report,” continues to argue that we’re in a bubble that’ll pop as we head for a financial crisis.
In an interview with Bloomberg TV, he says we are in a “gigantic financial asset bubble.” He also thinks the bubble could burst at any moment.
“I think we are in a gigantic financial asset bubble. But it is interesting that that despite of all the money printing, bond yields didn’t go down. They bottomed out on July 25, 2012 at 1.43% on the 10-years. We went to over 3.0%. We’re now at 2.85% or something thereabout. But we’re up substantially. Now, this hasn’t had an impact on stocks yet. In fact, it pushed money into the stock market out of the bond market. But if the 10-years goes to say 3.5% to 4.0%, then the 30-year goes to close to 5.0%, the mortgage rates go to 6.0%. That will hit the economy very hard.”
“[The bubble] could burst before. It could burst any day. I think we are very stretched. Sentiment figures are very, very bullish. Everybody’s bullish. The reality is they’re very bullish because they think the economy will accelerate on the upside. But my view is very different. The global economy is slowing down, because the global economy’s largely emerging economies nowadays, and there’s no growth in exports in emerging economies, there’s no growth, in the local economies. So, I feel that the valuations are high, the corporate profits have been boosted largely because of the falling interest rates.”
This is not a totally new call. Faber has repeatedly said that we’re headed for a 1987-type sell-off.
Faber also said Facebook is a fad and that lower interest rates are punishing savers. Here’s the entire transcript from Bloomberg TV:
———————————–
Faber on the Fed and how far the ‘rubber band can be stretched’:
“We have to distinguish between the financial economy, the financial sector, and the economy of the well-to-do people that benefit from rising asset prices, from rising prices of wines, and paintings and art, and bonds, and equities, and high-end properties in the Hamptons and West 15 here in New York and so forth — and the average person, the typical household, the so-called ‘median household’, or the working class people. And the Fed’s policies have actually led to a lot of problems around the world in the sense that they’re not only responsible, but partly responsible that energy prices are where they are, they’re up from $10 or $12 in 1999 to now around $100 a barrel. Food prices are up and a lot of other prices are up. So on your income, energy prices have very little impact because you at Bloomberg – you, young man – you make so much money. But for the poor people, it has an impact. Some people in the lower income groups, they spend say 30% of their income on energy, transportation, and so forth, electricity and gasoline.”
On whether the Fed is creating a two-class system:
“Correct, largely. The problem is then that you have people like Bill de Blasio, they come in and say: ‘you know what’s the problem? All these rich guys. Because of these rich people, you are poor. They take advantage of you. So, let’s go and tax them.’ The IMF has come out with a paper in Europe that essentially the well-to-do people should pay a 10% wealth task — a one-time wealth tax. I can assure you, a one-time wealth tax, 10%, will become an every-year’s tax eventually.”
On how to help the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum:
“This is the point I’d like to make. All of these professors and academics at the Fed who never really worked in the private sector a single day in their lives, and write papers nobody reads and nobody’s is interested in. Why would they want not write about how you structure an economic system that lifts the standard of living of most people? You can’t lift everybody.”
“We had that in the 19th century in the U.S. because we had very small government at the time. The entire government — local, state federal — was less than 20% of the economy. Now it is close to 50% of the economy.”
On whether the government is spending too much money:
“The larger the government becomes, the less economic growth you have and the more crony capitalism and corruptions you have. Because big corporations — and especially the money printers, they’re the most powerful people in the world, they control the governments. The U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the government is one and the same. The Fed, they finance the Treasury, so the government can go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they finance transfer payments to essentially buy votes so you can get elected.”
On bitcoin:
“I prefer physical gold and silver, platinum to bitcoin. Bitcoin can have a lot of competition. Gold, silver, platinum — they have no competition. How do you value a bitcoin? I can value gold to some extent and compare say gold to the quantity of money that is floating around the world, to the wealth increase, and to the monetary base increase, to the credit increase, and so forth and so on, and to the production costs. So I have an idea of where gold should be. I’m not sure because prices overshoot. How do you value Netflix? Is it overpriced or underpriced? Is Tesla overpriced, underpriced?”
On interest rates:
“But one thing I wanted to show you and talk about because you said that lower interest rates help people. Well, if money trending helps everybody, then why does not everybody in the whole world always have zero interest rates? And everybody would be rich. You keep on printing money and you don’t need to work here, you don’t need to put on makeup. I could stay in bed the whole day and go drinking in the evenings. So, let’s just print money and be all happy. It doesn’t add up. One thing about the figures you showed: first of all, you live in New York. Do you really think that your cost-of-living increase is a 1.2% per annum? You really believe that? It doesn’t feel like more, it feels like five times more, or even ten times more.”
“Number two, by keeping interest rates at zero percent on the Fed fund rate — i want to emphasize that this is now going on in March of 2014 for five years. It is not something new. For five years this has happened. You penalize the income earners, the savers who save, your parents, why should your parents be forced to speculate in stocks and in real estate and everything under the sun?”
On his view of overvalued stocks, including Facebook:
“I think it is to a large extent a fad. People they go on Facebook – what they do is they put pictures on and the only people that watch these pictures are themselves. They all want to be stars. It is a very distractive kind of occupation. I can’t imagine that this would have a lot of value. I would rather own – I don’t own it because I think it is very highly priced – I would rather own a company like Alibaba or Amazon or Google, than Facebook, personally. This is my view. Other people have different views. That’s what makes the market. Some people are buying it and some people are selling it.”

On overall market valuation concerns:
“I think we are in a gigantic financial asset bubble. But it is interesting that that despite of all the money printing, bond yields didn’t go down. They bottomed out on July 25, 2012 at 1.43% on the 10-years. We went to over 3.0%. We’re now at 2.85% or something thereabout. But we’re up substantially. Now, this hasn’t had an impact on stocks yet. In fact, it pushed money into the stock market out of the bond market. But if the 10-years goes to say 3.5% to 4.0%, then the 30-year goes to close to 5.0%, the mortgage rates go to 6.0%. That will hit the economy very hard.”
“[The bubble] could burst before. It could burst any day. I think we are very stretched. Sentiment figures are very, very bullish. Everybody’s bullish. The reality is they’re very bullish because they think the economy will accelerate on the upside. But my view is very different. The global economy is slowing down, because the global economy’s largely emerging economies nowadays, and there’s no growth in exports in emerging economies, there’s no growth, in the local economies. So, I feel that the valuations are high, the corporate profits have been boosted largely because of the falling interest rates.”

Why the Dollar Dominates, and Why That’s Not All Good

Why the Dollar Dominates, and Why That’s Not All Good

Lack of Rivals to Greenback Keeps It on Top—and Enables U.S. Government Dysfunction

By

DAVID WESSEL

 

Updated Dec. 4, 2013 2:42 p.m. ET

In an interview with WSJ’s David Wessel, Cornell’s Eswar Prasad, author of a forthcoming book, “The Dollar Trap: How the U.S. Dollar Tightened Its Grip on Global Finance,” explains why the U.S. currency remains so dominant despite all the nation’s woes.

The U.S. was the epicenter of the worst financial crisis in 75 years. Its central bank is printing money at a rate of $1 trillion a year. Its government debt load is huge and its political system is visibly dysfunctional. It represents a shrinking share of the world economy as China and other emerging markets rise.

You’d think the U.S. dollar’s reign as the world’s supreme currency would be ending—or at least vulnerable.

So now comes economist Eswar Prasad with a surprising argument: “The global financial crisis has strengthened the dollar’s prominence in global finance.”

The dollar, he predicts, will remain the world’s reserve currency for a long time. “When the rest of the world wants safety,” he says, “there is no other place to go.”

Neither the euro nor the Japanese yen is a plausible rival. China’s yuan may be someday, but not soon. China still lacks the legal and other institutions and deep financial markets that make U.S. Treasury debt so attractive to so many.

Mr. Prasad is no flag-waving naif. He’s a University of Chicago Ph.D. who spent 15 years at the International Monetary Fund, where he did a stint as chief of its China desk. He now splits his time between Cornell University and the Brookings Institution.

In a lucid book to be published in February, “The Dollar Trap,” Mr. Prasad argues that the dollar’s persistent dominance is a “suboptimal” reality.

The professor isn’t predicting that the dollar’s value in euros or yen or pounds or yuan will rise inexorably. Like many a card-carrying Ph.D., he sees the size of the U.S. trade deficit and expects the greenback to fall over the long run and eschews predictions about the dollar’s near-term direction.

Mr. Prasad expects China and others to price more of their exports in their own currencies. The yuan recently overtook the euro as the second-most used currency in international trade finance, according to Swift, which runs a major electronic financial pipeline.

But as a safe, secure place to park money, the dollar is stronger than ever. The made-in-America global financial crisis strengthened the dollar’s hold.

Here’s why:

Banks around the world have been ordered by government to hold safe, easy-to-sell assets so they’ll be better equipped for future crises. That adds to demand for government bonds; the U.S. issues more of them than anyone else.

Emerging markets want more safe assets, too. There’s ever-more money sloshing around the globe, much of it moving in and out of emerging markets. That has led them to make two relevant calls:

One, inflows of capital tend to push up exchange rates and threaten exports. So governments are increasingly prone to intervene—that is, to restrain the rise in their currencies by selling them in exchange for foreign currencies. That adds to demand for dollars, which are then invested in U.S. Treasurys.

Two, those same governments have decided it is essential to have a lot of insurance in case foreign capital flees; that means building a big pile of foreign-currency reserves to scare off speculators and to demonstrate they’ve got the money to pay foreign creditors. That, too, adds to the demand for dollars and U.S. Treasurys.

This demand is occurring at a time when safe assets are in short supply: The Federal Reserve has taken $2.2 trillion of U.S. Treasurys off the market through its bond-buying program. The euro has its issues, and the sovereign debt of some euro-zone members is hardly ultrasafe. Japan and Switzerland have strong institutions and financial markets, but are actively pushing down the value of their currencies; that makes them unappealing as stores of value.

“The entire edifice of global financial stability seems to be built on this fragile foundation: If not the dollar, and if not U.S. Treasury debt, then what?” Mr. Prasad writes.

So what makes this “suboptimal”?

For the U.S., Mr. Prasad says, the global appetite for dollars keeps U.S. interest rates low and makes it easier for the U.S. to pursue foolish budget policies aimed at too much deficit reduction now and too little later.

For other countries, the world’s heavy reliance on dollars makes nearly every economy acutely sensitive to moves (or expectations of moves) by the Fed to increase or decrease the supply of dollars as it tries to steer the U.S. economy. And their stockpiles of dollars exposes them to losses if the dollar’s value declines, which gives them a reason not to do anything to harm the dollar.

The more angst in the world, the more investors and governments want to hold dollars. This makes the dollar’s dominance “stable and self-reinforcing,” Mr. Prasad concludes.

If the dollar’s role isn’t sturdy—if it is more like a sand pile just a few grains away from collapse—then the world is in trouble. Despite years of yammering, the world hasn’t built an alternative to the U.S. dollar.

Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com