Trader’s Narrative

What better way to reliquify the world financial markets than sacrificing a currency?

If you’ll recall this is a well worn script. The last time we had a financial crisis, it was the Yen that was used as the vehicle of choice. Massive amounts of capital were borrowed in Yen and invested in other risky assets with the nudge-wink agreement of central banks that it was a one way trade.

Today it is the US dollar that is being sacrificed at the altar of the new bull market… in everything. Roubini has been among the most vocal to raise the alarm. But almost everyone else has decided to enjoy the trade while it lasts.

Of course, the sensible thing is to realize that you can’t drink yourself sober, just as you can’t dig yourself out of a hole. But since when have monetary policy wonks been fans of reality?

While it is difficult to prove definitively that the US dollar carry trade is the reason almost every single asset class has appreciated, its footprints are hard to miss. Here are David Rosenberg’s recent observations on the correlations across asset classes:

Historically, there is no correlation at all between the DXY index (the U.S. dollar index) and the S&P 500. In the past eight months, that correlation is 90%. Ditto for credit spreads — zero correlation from 1995 to 2008, but now it has surged to 90% since April.

There was historically a 70% inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and emerging markets, such as the Brazilian Bovespa, and that correlation has also increased to 90% since the spring.

Even the VIX index, which historically has had no better than a 20% correlation with the U.S. dollar, has now sent that correlation surge to 90%. Amazing. The inverse correlations between the U.S. dollar and gold and the U.S. dollar and commodities were always strong, but these too have strengthened and now stand at over 90%.

The scary consequence of the US dollar carry trade is that it has pushed almost all risky assets to be correlated. And when the music stops and someone starts to unwind the trade, it will get ugly. When everything you hold is correlated to each other and everything else in the market, even a small tremor of selling will lead to an avalanche as the value of your portfolio starts to decline all at once.

If you expect gold to be a safe haven, you’ll be sorely disappointed. Historically, gold and gold stocks have never been a stronghold in a severe sell off. So maybe that’s why short term T-Bill rates have been pushed so low.

Market strategists have drawn a line and taken sides: is gold in a bubble? Jim Rogers and Nouriel Roubini had a verbal smack down via respective media interviews with the former manager of the Quantum Fund being the believer he’s always been in the power of commodities while the prophet of doom and gloom used the “b” word to describe the precious metal.

Now another pair of strategists have taken sides - although not as personal as Rogers and Roubini. Dennis Gartman, believes not only that gold is in a bubble, but that it should be obvious to everyone. But that doesn’t mean he’s necessarily climbing off the trend:

Meanwhile, David Rosenberg featured this chart to argue not only is gold not in a bubble, it is actually “cheap”:

Leaving aside the obvious arithmetic (instead of logarithmic) scale, comparing the S&P 500 index to the price of gold is a non sequitur. This is due to the incessant rise of the equity index, with that itself due to the survival bias built into the constituents that make up the S&P 500 index. And don’t forget a dash of inflation which pumps up stock prices and therefore, stock indexes. So a ratio of gold to equity prices will for the most part look like a ski hill - and be as meaningful.

I’m also puzzled why Rosenberg is so bullish on gold since he has been one of the prescient strategists who has beaten the deflation drum the loudest.

Market Measure of Forward Inflation
Other than the CPI figures from the US government sources, there is a market determined inflation measure. It is the implicit inflation as per the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The TIPS data that I showed back in 2008 is no longer published by the Fed. Thankfully, Bloomberg disseminates a metric based on the nominal forward 5 years minus US inflation-linked bonds forward 5 years. So basically, this is the average inflation that the bond market expects from 2010 to 2015:

Source: Bloomberg

In the final days of last year, inflation expectations were the lowest in a very long time, fallin to just 0.41%. Earlier this month they reached 2.89% but today’s forward inflation expectation was still a muted 2.68%. Clearly, the bond vigilantes are not signaling a runaway inflation debacle in the near term future for the US.

So can it be that gold is in an honest to goodness bubble?

Gold Sentiment
Here are two measures of sentiment for the precious metal. The recent survey of Bloomberg terminal users on their conviction for gold found a remarkable 94% to be bullish.

That is a new record high since the survey started in 2004. Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s survey hasn’t been very good as a contrarian indicator. But it has rarely been above 90%. The closest it has gotten to this level was at the start of the year in January 2009 when it reached 91% bullish. Back then, gold was $900/oz. While there is a short history, the sheer lopsidedness of the recent consensus makes it noteworthy.

Courtesy of Elliott Wave, we get another measure of gold sentiment:

The Daily Sentiment Index (trade-futures.com) has been at, or above 90 percent gold bulls since November 3, a string of 10 straight days. The only other comparable streak of optimism over the past 22 years of data is leading up to the December 2, 2004 gold high when the DSI was at, or above 90 percent for 20 consecutive days. At that time, prices made a high at $458.70, declined over 10 percent, and did not exceed the December 2004 high again for the next 10 months. But during this entire 20 day stretch, optimism never reached the single day extreme that today did, with fully 97 percent of traders optimistic on gold’s future prospects. This time, we expect a larger decline, one that lasts longer too.

David Rosenberg, strategist at Gluskin Sheff continues to be staunchly bearish. He digs into his trench even further it seems with each point the S&P 500 climbs. Today he lists the contrasts between now and 1982 to argue why this is not a secular bull market:

• P/E Multiples were 8x, not 26x.
• Dividend yields were 6%, not sub-2%.
• The stock market was trading at a discount to book, not a 2x premium.
• Monetary policy was aimed at reducing money growth and inflation rates, not
  creating both as is the case now.
• Fiscal policy was aimed at reducing nondefense spending, not accelerating it.
• Deficits were peaking and coming down, not surging to 10%+ relative to GDP.
• Global trade barriers were being torn down; not erected.
• Deregulation back then was in; today it is all about re-regulation and
  government ownership.
• Union membership was on the way down; today it is back on the rise.
• The dollar was entering a Plaza Accord bull market, not a mercantilist bear
  market.
• Credit, household balance sheets and participation rates were expanding, not
  contracting.
• Tax rates, income, capital gains and dividends, were declining then; rising now.

He also compares the batch of government bureaucrats and politicians now to back then:

In 1982, Ronald Reagan was President (two consecutive terms as Governor of
California), Don Regan was Treasury Secretary (35 years of financial sector experience), Martin Feldstein as the Chief Economic Advisor to President Reagan (the dean of business cycle determination), and Paul Volcker was Fed Chairman (9 years of prior financial sector experience). Compare and contrast to Barrack Obama (junior senator from Illinois for 3 years); Timothy Geithner (21 years experience in government, three years as a lobbyist); Larry Summers (no private sector experience; 27 years of academia and government) and Ben Bernanke (no private sector experience; 30 years of academia and government).

Which team do you think deserved the higher multiple — the one with actual experience in the real world or the one immersed in academia and government?

To play devil’s advocate, no two bull markets are equal in every way. It is a stretch to require a secular bull market to require experienced politicians for example. But cheap (or at least, reasonable) valuation is a condition that is difficult to explain away.

Gold has the wind at its back right now. Not only has it cleared the challenging $1000 resistance level, it has support from lax monetary policy as central banks around the world clearly hold the health of their economy in higher priority than the health of their budgets or their currencies.

The recent purchase by the central bank of India is being interpreted widely as a vote of strong support for the precious metal. Although I don’t argue against a secular bull market, it is amusing to me that a decision to buy gold at above $1000 is deemed to be a ’smart’ move when just a year ago they could have made the same purchase for 30% less. The fact that almost any news is interpreted as positive for gold has more to do with the prevalent sentiment than with facts.

In any case, before we get to the short term sentiment for gold, here is the recent commentary from David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff on the monetary backdrop for a secular bull market in gold:

All India did was bring gold to a 6% share of its total FX reserves from 4%. Fifteen years ago, that representation was closer to 20%. China has increased its gold holdings by 76% over the past six years but they are a mere 1.9% of the aggregate 2.2 trillion of reserves and Russia’s gold holdings is just under 5%. This is not the 1990s when Bob Rubin was running a hard U.S. dollar policy, U.S. fiscal deficits were vanishing and gold production was on the rise. Today’s world is exactly the opposite. Policymakers beginning in the 1990s wanted disinflation and got it. Now they want inflation — it will take years, maybe a decade, but it will come. For the near-term, we are still optimistic on Treasury securities but be forewarned that this view has an expiry date that is earlier than the peak we are likely to see in gold.

It is very clear that central banks are behaving in a way that would suggest that gold is now again being considered a currency within the global monetary system. As we said before, it is all about relative scarcity and a well-defined supply curve — fiat currency at this juncture does not share that quality.

Turning to the breadth in the gold stock sector, you can see that we’ve seen a sudden and dramatic jump from a week ago. The chart below compares the percentage of gold stocks trading above their 10 day moving average with the Philadelphia Gold Bugs index (HUI):

If you’re interested in timing the gold market, then you would be concerned that 82% of gold stocks are trading above their short term moving average. But you would also be alarmed that just a few days ago, that number was below 10%. Historically, gold shares have a very tough time continuing to climb when faced with such short term headwinds.

Turning to sentiment in the gold sector, on Monday when we looked at the arguments that Paul Tudor Jones II presented for his case of a secular bull market in gold, we also digressed a little to check the Hulbert Gold Sentiment index. That sentiment measure was showing a majority in the bullish camp; which from a contrarian point of view means that gold probably will have difficulty in advancing in the short term.

In a similar vein, here is a chart, courtesy of Elliott Wave, which shows the price of gold with the Daily Sentiment Index (DSI). The most recent DSI is 91% which is just about where previous short term tops have been formed:

Similar to the breadth measure (shown earlier) the DSI increased to 91% in a sudden jump (an 8% point jump over a day). Accoding to Elliott Wave, which tracks the DSI, this was the single largest increase since March 19th 2009 (11% point jump from 75% to 86%) when gold made a two month high at $960. With Elliott Wave, not only do you get their analysis of various markets but they do a good job of monitoring DSI, which is a proprietary sentiment metric from trade-futures.com and by itself would costs about $2000/year.

Elliott Wave, by the way, is offering a rare limited time access into their premium content right now. FreeWeek happens only once or twice a year and provides you with full access to what subscribers normally pay more than $700 a year:

• Robert Prechter’s NEW October 2009 market letter, The Elliott Wave Theorist ($29 value)
• Steve Hochberg’s and Pete Kendall’s NEW November 2009 market letter, The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast ($29 value)
• Recently archived issues of the Theorist and the Financial Forecast ($29 value each)
• And a week of free access to Steve Hochberg’s Short Term Update, designed to keep your finger on the pulse of the following markets throughout the week: Dow, Nasdaq, S&P, Gold, Silver, Bonds ($39/month value)

This special offer will end in less than a week so sign up right now to take full advantage of FreeWeek.

Last week I presented a historical study of what happens when the S&P 500 is this far away from its 200 day moving average. If you missed it, click the link to check it out in full.

According to the study, when the stock market has trended enough to set off this indicator, it has trouble continuing its heady ways in the months that follow. The average 6 month return is -5%.

If you look at the data carefully, it becomes apparent that certain date ranges contain a lot of repeated instances where the S&P 500 index is 20% or more above its long term moving average. We’ve just traversed one of these periods from September 16th to the 22nd. Between those dates there were 5 consecutive days were the S&P 500 was at this threshold (or very very close).

The last time this occurred was at the end of July 1997. But the best example was of tenacity in this indicator was in late 1982, just as the great generational super bull market was launched. Although the expected consequence of such an overbought condition is for the market to hit a wall, or at least to pause, during the start of the great bull market, this was not the case. While it continuously flashed red, the stock market continued to climb higher and higher, acting very out of character.

So the question is whether what we are seeing is a repeat of that atypical market action. In other words, do bull market rules apply?

Although there is no way for me or anyone else to prove it definitively one way or another, I highly doubt that what we are witnessing is the dawn of another rare secular bull market based on one variable: valuation.

I mentioned a lot of ratios, statistics and data before but putting all those numbers aside, here is a simple chart which sums up the strange voyage we have taken, from fully priced perfection to panic induced forced liquidation and back again:

That doesn’t look like a great launch pad for the next generational bull market. Heck, even bonds are priced for perfection. At best, we are going through a cyclical bull market - otherwise known as a bear market rally.