[Below is an excerpt from a commentary posted at TSI on 19th February. Subsequently there have been no significant changes in the data, so the conclusion remains the same.]

Cutting to the chase, the short answer to the above question is no. Here is the longer answer:

Banks becoming suspicious of each other is one of the early signs that a banking crisis is brewing. This suspicion is indicated by a rise in the average interest rate that banks charge each other for short-term financing relative to the interest rate paid by the US federal government for financing of similar duration. For example, under normal (non-crisis) conditions the spread between 3-month LIBOR, a widely used interbank interest rate, and the yield on a 3-month Treasury Bill oscillates between 0% and 0.50%, but when some banks start becoming concerned about the financial strength of other banks the spread breaks above 0.50%.

The following daily chart shows the performance of the aforementioned interest rate spread since early-2006. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 sticks out on this chart and was signalled by an initial surge above 0.50% during the second quarter of 2007. During the period covered by this chart the only other move to well above the top of the normal range occurred during the March-2020 COVID crash, but it was very short-lived as the Fed acted immediately to ensure that the economic shutdowns perpetrated by governments did not create problems for the commercial banks. Also worth noting is that there were minor signs of banking-system stress in Q4-2011, Q3-2016, Q1-2018 and the first half of 2022 that did not develop into crises.

Importantly, the chart shows that the current spread is close to zero, which means that the interbank market is as calm (lacking in suspicion) as it ever gets.

Another interest rate spread worth monitoring is the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) minus the yield on the 1-month Treasury Bill. The SOFR is the interest rate that banks and hedge funds pay to borrow overnight money in the US Repo (Repurchase Agreement) market. It has a much shorter history than the LIBOR, but it is gaining in popularity. Like the LIBOR-Treasury spread discussed above, a substantial and sustained rise in the SOFR-Treasury spread would indicate increasing suspicion/stress in the banking system.

The following chart shows that the SOFR-Treasury spread has been far more volatile during the past 12 months than it was during the bulk of 2020-2021, but that it has oscillated around zero and currently is slightly below zero (a level indicating a general lack of concern).

Note that the huge upward spike in the SOFR-Treasury spread in 2019 was due to the “Repo Crisis” in September of that year. The Fed circumvented this crisis very quickly via emergency liquidity injections.

Unusual increases in the above interest rate spreads would warn that a banking crisis was brewing. Also, prior to a banking crisis there would be persistent and pronounced weakness in bank equities relative to the broad stock market.

The lower section of the following chart shows that there was significant weakness in the Bank Index (BKX) relative to the broad stock market (represented by the SPX) during February-March of last year, but that the BKX/SPX ratio is in a short-term upward trend and is at roughly the same level today as it was in early-April of last year.

Banking crises don’t come out of nowhere. Enough people inside and outside the banking industry see them coming and take steps to protect themselves or profit from the fallout that early warning signs emerge. Currently there are no such signs.

[This blog post in an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

It is clear that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has escalated into a major war. It is also clear that the conflict has evolved into a NATO proxy war against Russia. We don’t know how it will end and the extent to which the shooting will expand beyond Ukraine’s borders, but it’s very likely to result in the near-complete destruction of Ukraine. This almost certainly means that during the years following some form of peace agreement, there will be an effort to rebuild Ukraine funded by…you.

At the moment there’s no point attempting to analyse the ramifications of the Ukraine rebuilding in detail, because there’s no way of knowing when the war will end. It could end within the next two months or it could drag on for another two years. The issues we want to address in brief today are that the rebuilding effort will 1) be colossal (probably trillions of dollars), 2) cause a large and sudden increase in the demand for industrial commodities, and 3) be funded mainly by the citizens of the countries that provided military assistance to Ukraine. The entire episode will be a Keynesian stimulus program writ large. You destroy an entire country and then pay to bring it back to the way it was, creating a veritable tidal wave of “aggregate demand” in the process.

Regarding how the rebuilding will be funded, the key is that under the current monetary system anything that is paid for by the government initially will appear to be free. For example, since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war the US government has spent or committed to spend about US$105B to assist in Ukraine’s defence. This spending, which equates to about $800 per US household, has widespread support within the electorate, but how much support would it have if every household had received a bill for $800 for “military assistance to Ukraine”? Undoubtedly a lot less.

The reason that the Ukraine assistance and many other large government spending programs are either supported or ignored by the general public is that from the perspective of most people there is no cost. Nobody gets a bill or immediately has to pay higher taxes to cover the spending. Instead, the government just adds more debt to the ever-growing pile. Furthermore, sometimes the debt is purchased by the central bank with money created out of nothing, in which case there isn’t even a need for private investors to part with any money to fund the government deficit-spending.

Almost regardless of how high the cost of supporting Ukraine’s military efforts, it will be minor compared to the cost that eventually will be incurred in the rebuilding of Ukraine. However, for the reason outlined above, the huge cost initially won’t appear to be a major problem because it won’t adversely affect the personal finances of most people. There simply will be an addition to the existing pile of government debt. It won’t be until a year or two later, when the large demand for scarce resources resulting from the debt-financed rebuilding has caused interest rates and the cost of living to sky-rocket, that the adverse effects will be apparent to the general public.

Industrial metals such as copper, zinc, and nickel, and specialty metals such as lithium and the rare-earths, are among the resources that should have the greatest increases in demand relative to supply once the Ukraine rebuilding gets underway. This is because shortages of these commodities are already in the works due to the “energy transition” to which the political world is committed. An implication is that having investments linked to the production of these commodities will be a way for people to profit from or protect themselves against the “inflation” that will be unleashed after the fighting stops and governments set about trying to repair what they destroyed.

That reconstruction will follow the destruction is something to be aware of. Urgent action is not required, however, because at this time there are no signs that the destruction is about to end.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published on 22nd January 2023]

It goes without saying that the early stage of every large rally contains a break above resistance and the early stage of every large decline contains a break below support. However, most upside breakouts are not followed by large rallies and most downside breakouts are not followed by large declines. More interestingly, it is not uncommon for the best rallies to begin shortly after breaks BELOW obvious support and for the largest declines to begin shortly after breaks ABOVE obvious resistance. The reason is that breaching obvious resistance/support shakes out many weak-handed speculators and in doing so can create a sentiment platform capable of launching a substantial move in the opposite direction.

There are countless examples of the phenomenon described above, including gold’s performance over the past several months. Last September-October the US$ gold price breached important and obvious support defined by the lows of the preceding two years, but the breach of support did not have bearish implications. Instead, it marked the END of a 2-year bearish trend and in all likelihood ushered in a cyclical bull market.

We are revisiting this topic today because the S&P500 Index (SPX) is positioned such that it could soon generate a misleading signal in the form of a break above obvious resistance.

The potential upside breakout is associated with the downward trend-line drawn on the following daily SPX chart. Every chart-watcher and his dog are paying close attention to this trend-line and many of them undoubtedly would interpret a move above it as evidence that the bear market is over. However, the historical record suggests that the bear market won’t end until many months after the monetary trend becomes favourable, which probably means no sooner than the final quarter of this year.

There are fundamental differences between the present day and any previous period, but in price-action terms the current equity bear market has, to date, been similar to the equity bear market of 2000-2002. Both bear markets followed spectacular bubbles that were focused on tech stocks, involved stair-step declines rather than liquidity-driven collapses, and contained signs of internal strength after the initial multi-month declines.

Interestingly, during the course of the 2000-2002 bear market the SPX broke above a downward trend-line that is not unlike the trend-line drawn on the above chart. As illustrated below, about a week after the ‘bullish’ upside breakout in March-2002 the SPX commenced its largest decline of the bear market.

We don’t know that the SPX will break above its downward trend-line in the near future, although it stands a good chance of doing so. The point we want to stress today is that if the trend-line is breached it will not imply that the bear market is over or even that there will be significant gains over the weeks immediately ahead. On the contrary, an upside breakout could lead quickly to the best opportunity to date to enter bearish speculations.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt from a commentary published at TSI in April of 2022. The main changes are updates to the chart and the numbers.]

The US monetary tightening commenced in February of 2021– the month that the US monetary inflation rate peaked at the extraordinary level of 40%. The monetary inflation rate has since collapsed to around 0% and if the Fed has its way will fall even further over the months ahead. Why is this important?

The overarching reason it’s important is that changes in the monetary inflation rate, that is, changes in the rate at which new money is created out of nothing, drive the economy’s boom-bust cycle. More specifically, large increases in the monetary inflation rate result in periods during which the economy is superficially strong and optimism abounds (the boom phase), while subsequent reductions in the monetary inflation rate lay bare the ill-conceived boom-time investments and usher in the bust phase.

Associated with the major trends in the monetary inflation rate that drive the boom-bust cycle are major trends in the yield curve.

A discussion of the relationship between the monetary inflation rate and the yield curve, including a full explanation of why an inversion of the yield curve has preceded all US recessions of the past sixty years, can be found HERE. The bottom line is that trends in the monetary inflation rate drive trends in the yield curve, with a yield curve inversion being caused by a decline in the monetary inflation rate from a high level to a low level. That is, both a flattening of the yield curve to the point where it becomes inverted and a shift in the economy from boom to bust are eventual effects of a downward trend in the monetary inflation rate.

The strong positive correlation between the US monetary inflation rate and the US yield curve is illustrated by the following monthly chart. On this chart the yield curve is represented by the monthly average of the 10year-2year yield-spread and is shown in red. The monetary inflation rate is the year-over-year percentage change in True Money Supply (TMS) and is shown in blue.

One difference between the current cycle and previous cycles is that monetary conditions in the current cycle became sufficiently tight to drive parts of the yield curve into inverted territory when the Fed was just STARTING a monetary tightening campaign.

Does the Fed have any idea what it is doing?

Before answering the above question it is worth reiterating that the Fed is a Keynesian institution. Within the Keynesian framework the economy can be viewed as a bathtub filled with an amorphous liquid called “aggregate demand”, and it is the job of the central bank and the government to add or remove liquid to keep the level of the tub in a range deemed desirable. In the real world, however, there are millions of individuals making production, consumption and investment decisions for myriads of reasons. Consequently, in the real world there is no such thing as the Keynesian “aggregate demand” and it is ridiculous to view the economy as a bathtub that can be filled/emptied by policymakers to optimise performance.

Returning to the above question, the Fed seems to believe that it can make up for the recklessness of its actions during 2020-2021 by becoming excessively ‘tight’ during 2022-2023. At least, that’s the only plausible explanation for why it started reducing its balance sheet by up to US$95B per month, thus removing up to $95B of money from the economy every month, after the monetary inflation rate had already dropped far enough to bring on the bust phase of the cycle.

Also, the Fed seems to believe that it can address rapidly rising prices resulting from supply shortages by engineering a further tightening of monetary conditions, as if reducing the availability of money will remove the constraints on supply caused by COVID-related policies and anti-Russia sanctions.

The reality is that after an inflation problem has been created via a large increase in the money supply, removing money from the economy cannot help. Actually, it will lead to additional distortions of relative price signals and thus greater economic weakness. What’s desirable is money-supply stability.

So, the answer to the question is no. Even taking into account the limitations imposed by the fatally flawed Keynesian framework in which it operates, the Fed appears to have no idea what it is doing.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Market interest rates always lead Fed-controlled interest rates at important turning points. Therefore, when trying to figure out whether interest rates have peaked or troughed, don’t look at what the Fed is saying; look at what the markets are saying.

The above statement is illustrated by the following chart comparison of the Fed Funds Rate (the green line), an overnight interest rate totally controlled by the Fed, and the 2-year T-Note Yield (the blue line), a short-term interest rate that is influenced by the Fed but ultimately determined by the market. The chart shows that at cyclical trend changes since the mid-1990s, the 2-year T-Note yield always changed direction in advance of — usually well in advance of — the Fed Funds Rate (FFR). For example, focusing on the downward trend changes we see from the chart that a) the 2-year yield reversed downward in Q4-2018 and the FFR followed in mid-2019, b) the 2-year yield reversed downward in mid-2006 and the FFR followed in mid-2007, and c) the 2-year yield reversed downward in Q2-2000 and the FFR followed in Q4-2000. When the 2-year T-Note yield reversed downward in 2018, 2006 and 2000, the Fed had no idea that within 6-12 months it would be slashing the FFR.

Right now, J. Powell thinks that the Fed is going to hike its targeted interest rates 2-3 more times and then hold them at 5% or more until well into 2024. However, that’s nothing like what the Fed will do if the stock market, the GDP growth numbers, the CPI and the employment data do what we expect over the next few quarters.

Our view is that the US stock market and economy are about to tank due to the decline in the monetary inflation rate that has already occurred, causing market interest rates to fall across the yield curve. Furthermore, the longer it takes for the Fed to wake up to what’s going on, the worse it will be for both the stock market and the economy and the more rapid will be the decline in market interest rates.

The Fed is asleep, but the market has begun to discount the “inflation” collapse and the negative economic news to come. Evidence is the pullback in the 2-year T-Note yield from its high in early-November to below its 50-week MA (the blue line on the following chart). This is the first sustained break below the 50-week MA since the upward trend was established in 2021. A break below the 90-week MA (the black line on the chart) would be a definitive signal that the 2-year yield’s cyclical trend has changed from up to down.

Based on the leads and lags of the past three decades, if the early-November high for the 2-year yield proves to be the ultimate high for the cycle, which it very likely will, then the Fed has made its last rate hike and will be cutting rates by the final quarter of next year. Our guess is that the Fed’s first rate-cut will occur during the second or third quarter of 2023.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published at TSI on 4th December]

At least one of two things should happen to warn that an official US recession is about to begin. One is a decline in the ISM Manufacturing New Orders Index (NOI) to below 48 and the other is a reversal of the yield curve’s trend from flattening/inverting to steepening. For all intents and purposes the first signal triggered in July-2022 when the NOI dropped to 48, whereas the second signal probably won’t trigger until the first half of next year.

The following monthly chart shows that the NOI dropped to a cycle low of 47.1 in September-2022, ticked up in October and returned to its cycle low in November, leaving the message unchanged. The NOI is signalling that a recession has started or will start soon.

The following chart also shows that the NOI dropped below 40 during the recession period of the early-2000s and dropped below 30 during the 2007-2009 Global Financial Crisis and the 2020 COVID lockdowns. We expect that it will drop below 30 next year.

The first of the two daily charts displayed below shows that the 10yr-2yr yield spread, our favourite yield curve indicator, plunged well into negative (inverted) territory during July and remains there. The second chart shows that the 10yr-3mth yield spread, which apparently is the Fed’s favourite yield curve indicator, finally followed suit over the past two months and is now as far into inverted territory as the 10yr-2yr spread.

One of our consistent messages over the past few months has been that a more extreme inversion of the US yield curve would occur before there was a major reversal to steepening. There were two reasons for this. First, the monetary inflation rate (the primary driver of the yield curve) was set to remain in a downward trend until at least early-2023. Second, it was likely that declining inflation expectations would put downward pressure on yields at the long end while the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign supported yields at the short end. For these reasons, we wrote over the past few months that by early 2023 both the 10yr-2yr and 10yr-3mth spreads could be 100 basis points into negative (inverted) territory.

As recently as two months ago our speculation that the 10yr-2yr and 10yr-3mth spreads would become inverted to the tune of 100 basis points (1.00%) by early-2023 looked extreme, especially since the 10yr-3mth spread was still above zero at the time. With both of these spreads now having become inverted by around 80 basis points, that’s no longer the case.

We doubt that the aforementioned yield spreads will move significantly more than 100 basis points into negative territory, because we expect that during the first quarter of next year economic reality (extreme weakness in the economic statistics and the stock market) will hit the Fed like a ton of bricks. This should bring all monetary tightening efforts to an abrupt end, causing interest rates at the short end to start falling faster than interest rates at the long end, that is, causing the yield curve to begin a major steepening trend.

Our conclusion over the past four months has been that the US economy had commenced a recession or would do so in the near future. Due to recent up-ticks in some coincident and lagging economic indicators, we now think that the first quarter of 2023 is the most likely time for the official recession commencement.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published last week]

Monetary inflation is the driver of the economic boom-bust cycle, with booms being set in motion by rapid monetary inflation and busts getting underway after the rate of new money creation drops below a critical level and/or it becomes impossible to complete projects due to resource shortages. The following chart shows that the US monetary inflation rate (the year-over-year growth rate of US True Money Supply) extended its decline in October-2022 and is now only 2.6%, down from a peak of almost 40% early last year.

In previous TSI commentaries we wrote that if the Fed were to stick with its balance-sheet reduction plan then by next February the year-over-year rate of US money supply growth probably would be negative, that is, the US would be experiencing monetary deflation. Because nothing disastrous has happened to the overall US economy and the broad stock market YET (at this stage, the disasters have been confined to the economic/market sectors where speculation was the most manic), the Fed almost certainly will stick with its balance-sheet reduction plan for at least a few more months. This means there is a high probability of the US experiencing monetary deflation during the first half of 2023. What would be the likely ramifications?

In a healthy economy a year-over-year decline in the money supply of a few percent would not be a big problem, whereas an economy rife with bubble activities stemming from a massive prior increase in the money supply is not healthy and would be expected to experience a severe downturn in response to monetary deflation or even a period of relative money-supply stability. The current US economy is an example of the latter, making it acutely vulnerable to monetary deflation.

Declining money-supply growth hits the most egregious bubble activities first. For example, many of the most popular stock market speculations of the 2020-2021 bubble period already have lost more than 90% of their market values and the ‘crypto world’ is immersed in a collapse that probably isn’t close to complete. Unfortunately, though, when price signals become distorted by monetary inflation to the point where mal-investment has occurred on a grand scale, it isn’t just the businesses directly involved in the bubble activities that suffer life-threatening contractions after the bubbles burst. Almost everyone gets hurt.

A severe economic downturn during 2023 that possibly extends into 2024 is one ramification of the on-going slide in the monetary inflation rate. Another is that the US economy could experience price deflation, as indicated by the year-over-year rate of CPI growth dropping below zero, during the final quarter of 2023. This combination will, we suspect, lead to a substantial rebound in the Treasury market and a rise in the US$ gold price to new all-time highs within the coming 12 months.

It almost goes without saying that a severe recession and a collapse in the CPI during 2023 will prompt the Fed to initiate another round of money pumping with all of the usual knock-on effects, including new waves of mal-investment and price inflation.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published last week]

Many times over the years we’ve argued that gold and the world’s most important equity index (the S&P500 Index — SPX) are at opposite ends of a virtual investment seesaw. If one is in a long-term bull market then the other must be in a long-term bear market, with the gold/SPX ratio determining where the real bull market lies. As discussed in a TSI commentary and blog post about five months ago, our ‘investment seesaw’ concept was part of the inspiration for a model, called the Synchronous Equity and Gold Price Model (SEGPM)*, that defines a quantitative relationship between the SPX, the US$ gold price and the US money supply. What is the SEGPM’s current message?

Before we answer the above question, a brief recap is in order.

In general terms and as explained in the above-linked blog post, the SEGPM is based on the concept that there are periods when an increase in the money supply will boost the SPX more than it will boost the gold price and other periods when an increase in the money supply will boost the gold price more than it will boost the SPX, with the general level of trust/confidence in money, the financial system and government determining whether the SPX or gold is the primary beneficiary of monetary inflation. During long periods when trust/confidence is high or trending upward, increases in the money supply will tend to do a lot for the SPX and very little for gold. The opposite is the case during long periods when trust/confidence is low or falling.

More specifically, the SEGPM is based on the concept that adding the SPX to 1.5-times the US$ gold price (and applying a scaling factor) results in a number that tracks the US money supply over the long-term.

The following monthly chart replicates the model using our calculation of US True Money Supply (TMS). The money supply is shown in red and the SEGPM (the sum of the S&P500 Index and 1.5-times the US$ gold price) is shown in blue.

Currently the SEGPM is as far below the money supply as it has been since 1970-1971, when the gold price was fixed at US$35/ounce. This suggests scope for a catch-up move by the gold-SPX combination over the next two years. Furthermore, if we are right to think that the US and the world are about 6 months into a 1-3 year economic bust, then the catch-up will have to happen via a rise in the US$ gold price.

*The model was created by Dietmar Knoll.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published at TSI last week]

Monetary inflation is the driver of the economic boom-bust cycle, with booms being set in motion by rapid monetary inflation and busts getting underway after the rate of new money creation drops below a critical level and/or it becomes impossible to complete projects due to resource shortages. The following chart shows that the US monetary inflation rate (the year-over-year growth rate of US True Money Supply) extended its decline in September-2022 and is now below 4%, down from a peak of almost 40% early last year.

Due to the economic damage done over multiple cycles by the manipulations of the central bank, the current US economic bust began at a higher rate of monetary inflation than previous busts. In addition, most things related to the current boom-to-bust transition have happened within a compressed timeframe.

In previous cycles over the past three decades, a decline in the monetary inflation rate to below 6% kicked off a sequence lasting 1-2 years encompassing an inversion of the yield curve, a substantial widening of credit spreads (the start of the credit-spreads widening trend combined with the start of an upward trend in the gold/commodity ratio marks the start of the bust phase) and a reversal of the yield curve from flattening/inverting to steepening — PRIOR to the start of an economic recession. This time around, however, all of the above except a steepening of the yield curve occurred within 7 months of a decline in the monetary inflation rate to below 8%.

There is yet to be a reversal in the yield curve from flattening/inverting to steepening, but that’s because this time around the Fed is continuing to tighten monetary conditions aggressively into the teeth of an economic recession. This is similar to what happened in 1973-1974.

To further explain the above comment, the monetary inflation rate (the blue line on the following monthly chart) drives the yield curve (the red line on the chart). Of particular relevance to this discussion, an inversion of the yield curve (the red line dropping below zero) is an EFFECT of a large decline in the monetary inflation rate, and in general a trend reversal in the yield curve from flattening/inverting to steepening requires an upward trend reversal in the monetary inflation rate.

With the downward trend in the US monetary inflation rate unlikely to end any sooner than the first quarter of next year, a trend reversal in the yield curve (to steepening) is probably still at least several months away. In the meantime, it’s reasonable to expect that the curve will move even further into inverted territory.

As mentioned in the 3rd October Weekly Update, if the Fed sticks with its current balance-sheet reduction plan for only a few more months then by February of next year the year-over-year rate of US money supply growth probably will turn negative, that is, the US will be experiencing monetary deflation. If this happens then the prices of most assets will go much lower than they are today.

As also previously mentioned, economic and stock market weakness eventually will put irresistible pressure on the Fed to commence a new monetary easing campaign, but there is nothing to be gained by trying to guess when that will be. This is because the initial attempts to ‘stimulate’ almost certainly won’t be sufficient to ignite a new boom, and because the stock market usually doesn’t bottom until well after the monetary inflation trend has reversed upward. At the moment we are a long way from such a reversal.

[This blog post is a slightly modified excerpt from recent TSI commentary]

The root of Europe’s energy crisis is under-investment or outright dis-investment in nuclear energy and natural gas production/storage/transportation combined with over-reliance on intermittent and relatively inefficient forms of renewable energy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the anti-Russia sanctions exacerbated the problem, but the problem was evident prior to this year. A policy course correction therefore would be appropriate (to put it mildly), but it won’t happen anytime soon.

When private companies go in the wrong direction they lose money and either change direction or go broke, but after it becomes clear that a government has gone in the wrong direction the typical response is to go faster in that direction. This is because doing otherwise would require an uncomfortable public admission that mistakes have been made or a practically impossible public admission that the political ideology underpinning the chosen direction is wrong. In the case of the shift towards increasing reliance on renewable energy, the latter (a public admission that the underlying political ideology is wrong) would be required, which is why we shouldn’t expect it. Instead, we should expect acceleration along the wrong path.

Signs of acceleration along the wrong path are not hard to find. Examples include the recent increase from 32% to 45% in the official European target for the renewable energy share of total energy, requiring a doubling of the renewable energy share within the next eight years, and the government of Victoria, Australia, recently announcing a goal to become 95% dependent on renewables by 2035.

It is not possible to achieve the renewable energy targets being set by governments, but nevertheless it’s reasonable to expect that great efforts will be made to achieve them. Here are some of the likely effects of these efforts:

1) There will be major shortages within the next few years of the minerals used in renewable energy systems, leading to vastly higher prices for these minerals and increased mining activity.

2) On a global basis there will be extensive environmental damage, and for at least the next ten years there will be increased carbon emissions, due to the additional mining and manufacturing activity associated with building the renewable energy systems.

3) There will be periodic major shortages of natural gas, oil, oil-based products (diesel and gasoline) and coal due to under-investment in the production of these commodities, leading to the existing producers of these commodities becoming far more valuable.

4) The cost of energy as a percentage of GDP will be much higher this decade than in the preceding decade, leading to a lower standard of living for the average person.

5) There will be a large rise in the price of uranium, because the expansion of nuclear energy will become politically attractive (meaning: a vote winner) in the face of periodic energy shortages and extremely high energy prices.

As investors/speculators, we can’t do anything about the adverse social and environmental consequences of the accelerating trend towards ‘renewables’. However, we can attempt to profit from points 1), 3) and 5).

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary published at TSI]

It would be difficult for our opinion of Powell and Co. to be any lower, and yet we still manage to overestimate them.

Having correctly anticipated that the Fed had paved the way for a major inflation problem — a problem that would become evident in commodity, goods and services prices rather than just asset prices — during the first half of 2020, we were surprised that the Fed continued to stimulate after such a problem became blatantly obvious in 2021. And over the past few months we have been surprised that the Fed remained on an aggressive monetary tightening path after it became clear that the equity bubble had burst, the US economy had entered or was about to enter recession territory, commodity prices had set intermediate-term peaks and forward-looking indicators of the CPI were in downward trends.

With regard to forward-looking CPI indicators, one of the most useful is the difference between the 10-year T-Note yield and the 10-year TIPS yield, a.k.a. the 10-year Breakeven Rate, which is a measure of the future annual percentage growth of the CPI factored into the bond market. The following chart shows that over the past two weeks this indicator made an 18-month low.

Chart source: https://research.stlouisfed.org/

Another forward-looking CPI indicator is the ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid Index, an index based on a survey of purchasing managers at US manufacturing companies. As illustrated below, this index has plunged over the past six months to its lowest level in more than two years.

Chart source: https://tradingeconomics.com/

A popular view at the moment is that inflation will prove to be sticky. Well, if the Fed continues along its current path then many people are going to be surprised at just how non-sticky inflation proves to be. We think that if the Fed stays with its current balance-sheet reduction plan until early next year, then by this time next year the year-over-year growth rate of the headline CPI will be less than 2%. It could even be negative.

One of the reasons that the Fed may continue along its current path for a few more months is that policymakers are focusing on the headline CPI growth numbers, and these numbers will remain at very high levels for at least a few more months due to the large price rises that occurred during the first half of this year. Putting it another way, there won’t be a substantial decline in the CPI’s year-over-year growth rate until the large gains that occurred during the first half of this year start dropping out of the calculation. Until then, it’s possible that the Fed will be under political pressure to persist with its “inflation fighting”, and Powell has demonstrated that he is very susceptible to political pressure.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Last year US President Biden was telling oil companies that they should be producing less. Then, during the first few months of this year he berated oil companies for not rapidly increasing their production in response to higher prices. Who knows what he will be telling oil companies to do next year or even next week? In this political environment, why would high-profile, publicly-listed oil companies make large investments in long-term oil production growth?

The answer is that they wouldn’t. Even if the next US president understands the need to increase fossil fuel production for at least another 10-15 years and is prepared to stand up to the crowd of misguided environmentalists who seem to believe that renewable energy systems can be created out of nothing, the person that gets the job four years later could have no such understanding and/or no backbone. Therefore, even if the political landscape were to become temporarily supportive, it would be too risky to invest in anything other than small projects with rapid paybacks.

Consequently, we probably have reached “Peak Oil”. This is not the Peak Oil that became a popular story during 2004-2008, because there is no doubt that oil production could be increased with the appropriate investment. It is Peak Oil caused by Regime Uncertainty. As defined HERE, Regime Uncertainty is a pervasive lack of confidence among investors in their ability to foresee the extent to which future government actions will alter their private-property rights.

Due to Regime Uncertainty, we expect that two things will happen over the next few years. The first is that the oil price will make a sustained move above this year’s high (US$130/barrel), because demand will grow (following the 2022-2023 recession) and the oil industry will not respond with large-scale investments in new production. The second is that there will be substantial growth in the amount of wealth returned by oil producers to their shareholders via dividends and share buybacks.

As is the case with NG [natural gas] stocks, short-term weakness in the commodity market combined with downward pressure exerted by the general equity bear market could create excellent opportunities to increase exposure to the oil sector within the next few months.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published last week]

The financial markets were shocked — shocked, we tell ya! — by the US CPI for August. We know they were shocked because on the day of the CPI release the US stock market gave back almost all of the gain achieved during the preceding strong 4-day rebound and there was a big up-move in the Dollar Index. Before we take a look at the CPI report that caused the mini panic, it’s worth repeating the following comments from the 15th August Weekly Update:

“Over the past few weeks the financial markets have celebrated the signs of declining “inflation”, the thinking being that the evidence of an inflation reversal will lead to a Fed pivot in the short-term. This line of thinking is wrong in two critical ways.

The first way it is wrong is that the Fed’s leadership appears to have its eyes firmly fixed on the rear-view mirror. Although there is now a CPI downtick in the rear-view mirror, base effects (the CPI increases that will remain in the year-over-year calculations for months to come) ensure that the headline CPI growth numbers will remain elevated for at least the remainder of this year. For example, even though inflation most likely has peaked on an intermediate-term basis, the numbers that will stay in and drop out of the year-over-year calculations each month mean that there is almost no chance of the year-over-year CPI growth rate dropping below 6% sooner than the first quarter of next year. In fact, the year-over-year CPI growth rate reported for each of the next three months probably will still have an ‘8 handle’.

Therefore, for months to come the Fed is going to be seeing annual CPI growth rates near multi-decade highs, which will encourage it to continue tightening.

The second way it is wrong is that even after the Fed’s leadership starts to feel confident that inflation is heading towards a level that it deems acceptable, there won’t be an immediate policy reversal.”

The evidence continues to accumulate that inflation is now in a downward trend, but due to the price increases that have already occurred it is reasonable to expect that the year-over-year CPI growth numbers will be near multi-decade highs for at least a few more months. Nobody should expect anything else. Certainly, nobody should have been shocked by the 8.3% year-over-year CPI growth number reported for August.

The 8.3% growth rate reported for August followed 8.5% in July and 9.1% in June. This is probably the start of a downward trend that won’t bottom until Q2-Q3 of next year. More significantly, we point out that the percentage change in the CPI over the past two months was approximately zero — the result of a large decline in the gasoline price offset by price gains elsewhere (e.g. in rent and food).

However, the monthly chart displayed below shows that the numbers remain very high relative to everything over the past twenty years prior to the past few months. This is the issue, given the tendency of the Fed’s leadership to fixate on the rear-view mirror.

It’s worth mentioning that there continues to be a wide gap between the current CPI growth rate and the expected future CPI growth rate.

The following daily chart shows that the 10-Year Breakeven Rate, a measure of what the bond market expects the CPI to be in years to come, peaked on 21st April this year at 3.02%, made a short-term bottom at 2.29% on 6th July and currently is much closer to a 12-month low than a 12-month high. There’s a good chance that the expected CPI will drop to 2.0% or lower during the stock market’s next large multi-month decline.

The problem for the stock market bulls who take every hint of declining “inflation” as a reason to anticipate a shift from monetary tightening to monetary easing is that such a shift won’t happen within the next six months unless there is a lot more economic and stock market weakness. We think that the aforementioned monetary shift will happen during the first quarter of next year, but that’s only because we are expecting a lot more weakness in the stock market and the economy.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

In most countries/regions around the world, monetary inflation rates peaked at extraordinary heights in early 2021 and have since crashed. Furthermore, the declines are set to continue over the next several months as central bankers attempt to make up for their mistake of being far too ‘easy’ during 2020-2021 by being far too ‘tight’ during 2022-2023, thus revealing a fondness for irony given that part of the official justification for central banks is to smooth-out the business cycle. Here are monthly money-supply charts showing where we are and where we’ve been.

G2 True Money Supply (TMS), a concoction of ours that combines the money supplies of the US and the euro-zone, is the primary driver of the global boom-bust cycle. The following chart shows that in July-2022 the year-over-year G2 TMS growth rate dropped below the boom-bust threshold. With both the Fed and the ECB intent on contracting their balance sheets over the months ahead, it’s a virtual certainty that the line on this chart will continue to move downward. This will worsen the global recession that is already underway.

At a little over 10%, Australia’s monetary inflation rate remains high. However, it has come down a lot from its level of 18 months ago and looks set to drop to 5% or lower over the next several months as the Reserve Bank of Australia ‘tightens the screws’. This is bearish for Australia’s real estate market, where valuations generally remain extremely high.

Over the past 18 months Canada’s monetary inflation rate has collapsed from an all-time high to near a multi-decade low. This has very bearish implications for Canada’s real estate market.

The UK’s monetary inflation rate also has collapsed from an all-time high to near a multi-decade low.

Japan has been a monetary inflation enigma for a long time, in that despite the appearance of aggressive Bank of Japan (BOJ) money pumping the year-over-year growth rate of Japan’s M2 money supply spent the bulk of the past 25 years in the 0%-4% range. In response to the COVID crisis the M2 growth rate surged to almost 10% in 2020-2021, but it has since fallen back to its low/narrow multi-decade range.

With regard to money-supply growth, China has been the ‘odd man out’ over the past three years. In China the monetary response to the COVID crisis was relatively minor and by January of this year the year-over-year growth rate of M1 money supply had dropped below zero. It has since rebounded to around 7%.

The following chart shows that China’s monetary inflation rate has been making lower highs and lower lows (trending downward, that is) since 2010. It probably isn’t a fluke that this downward trend coincides with Xi Jinping’s leadership, because Xi does not like financial speculation.

China’s relatively slow rate of monetary inflation over the past few years is a long-term plus for that country’s economy, but it is being counteracted by many negatives including the severe damage that has been wrought by the “Dynamic Zero COVID” policy.

Once central banks have created a bubble the best they can do is step aside and let the markets sort out the mess. Stepping aside would involve not creating any more money and not destroying any existing money. The worst they can do is take money out of the economy, because that causes additional price distortions and because simply ending the pumping-in of new money would be sufficient on its own to burst the bubble. Currently, central banks are doing the worst they can do in an effort to address price rises resulting from supply constraints, as if reducing the availability of money and credit will promote the investment needed to bring about additional supply. These actions will have dire consequences.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a commentary published at TSI last week]

We have referred to the 6% level for the year-over-year US True Money Supply (TMS) growth rate (the US monetary inflation rate) as the boom-bust threshold, because transitions from economic boom to economic bust generally don’t begin until after the TMS growth rate has made a sustained move below this level. It was different this time, however, because according to other indicators the US economy entered the bust phase of the monetary-inflation-driven boom-bust cycle during the first quarter of this year with the TMS growth rate still above 6%. Why was it different this time and what’s the current situation?

We outlined the most likely reasons why it was different this time in previous commentaries, most recently in the 27th July Interim Update. Here’s the relevant excerpt from our 27th July commentary:

“We think that the current bust began at a higher rate of monetary inflation than in the past for two main reasons. The first is that the Fed was still in monetary-loosening mode at the peak of the economic boom. This had never happened before and resulted in even greater wastage of real savings/resources than in previous booms. The second reason is that due to decades of increasing central bank manipulation of money and interest rates, the economy has become structurally weaker and therefore the collapse of a boom now requires less relative monetary tightening than in the past.”

The main new point we want to make today is that the US money-supply data for July-2022, which were published on Tuesday of this week, reveal that the monetary inflation rate has now confirmed the bust by moving well below the 6% boom-bust threshold. This is illustrated by the first of the two monthly charts displayed below. Furthermore, the second of the following charts shows that the year-over-year TMS growth rate minus the year-over-year percentage change in the Median CPI*, an indicator of the real (inflation-adjusted) change in the US monetary inflation rate, has plunged to near a multi-decade low.

As an aside, from the end of last year to the end of July this year the US True Money Supply increased by $580B. This figure comprises the change in currency in circulation, the change in commercial bank demand and savings deposits, and the change in the amount of money held by the US government in the Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed. It is very roughly equal to the increase in commercial bank credit plus the increase in Federal Reserve credit minus the increase in the Fed’s Reverse Repo program. Over the aforementioned period the Fed’s direct actions REDUCED the US money supply by about $210B, but the Fed’s actions were more than offset by the money-creating actions of the commercial banking industry.

With the Fed still on the tightening path, it’s unlikely that the lines on the above charts have bottomed. One implication is that the yield curve probably will become more inverted over the next few months. Another implication is that it would be difficult to be too bearish with regard to the US stock market’s 6-12 month prospects.

*A price index calculated by the Cleveland Fed

[This blog post is a brief excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Over the past few weeks the financial markets have celebrated the signs of declining “inflation”, the thinking being that the evidence of an inflation reversal will lead to a Fed pivot in the short-term. This line of thinking is wrong in two critical ways.

The first way it is wrong is that the Fed’s leadership appears to have its eyes firmly fixed on the rear-view mirror. Although there is now a CPI downtick in the rear-view mirror, base effects (the CPI increases that will remain in the year-over-year calculations for months to come) ensure that the headline CPI growth numbers will remain elevated for at least the remainder of this year. For example, even though inflation most likely has peaked on an intermediate-term basis, the numbers that will stay in and drop out of the year-over-year calculations each month mean that there is almost no chance of the year-over-year CPI growth rate dropping below 6% sooner than the first quarter of next year. In fact, the year-over-year CPI growth rate reported for each of the next three months probably will still have an ‘8 handle’.

Therefore, for months to come the Fed is going to be seeing annual CPI growth rates near multi-decade highs, which will encourage it to continue tightening.

The second way it is wrong is that even after the Fed’s leadership starts to feel confident that inflation is heading towards a level that it deems acceptable, there won’t be an immediate policy reversal. Instead, the following sequence is likely:

1) The pace of rate hiking will slow

2) The rate hiking will stop

3) The balance sheet contraction (QT) will stop

4) Rate cutting will begin

5) Balance sheet expansion (QE) will begin

At the moment Step 5 is probably at least eight months into the future. In the 2007-2009 bear market and recession, the bear market didn’t end until about six months AFTER step 5.

This suggests to us that asset prices in general and the stock market in particular will face monetary headwinds until at least the first quarter of next year, and that monetary conditions will not be ripe for a new equity bull market any sooner than the second half of next year. In the meantime there will be rebounds to lower highs followed by declines to lower lows.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary published at TSI]

It is claimed that government indebtedness can be reduced via something called “financial repression”, which is the combination of “price inflation” and interest rate suppression. The idea is that the government debt burden can be made smaller in real terms in a relatively painless way by depreciating the currency in which the debt is denominated while the central bank prevents a large rise in the cost of servicing the debt. At a superficial level it seems plausible and may well be attempted over the years ahead by some governments, including the US government. However, aside from it having never worked as advertised in the past, the problem with financial repression is that when viewed through the lens of good economic theory it is not plausible. On the contrary, good economic theory indicates that the financial repression path leads to the destruction of the currency and economic collapse.

To support their argument, advocates of the idea that financial repression can achieve its intended goal (a reduction in the real government debt burden without dramatically adverse economic consequences) point to the US experience during the decade following the end of the Second World War. During this period there was significant “inflation”, a large reduction in federal government indebtedness and a successful effort by the Fed to prevent the yield on US government bonds from rising to reflect the inflation. However, this is an example of the logical error of observing that ‘B’ followed ‘A’ and concluding that ‘A’ must therefore have caused ‘B’.

In economics there are always many potential influences on an outcome. As a result, to avoid coming up with nonsensical cause-effect relationships you must be armed with prior knowledge in the form of good theory. For example, an observation that over the past twenty years the US unemployment rate has tended to move inversely, with a lag, to the price of beer in Iceland, should not lead to the conclusion that the rate of US unemployment could be reduced by increasing the price of beer in Iceland.

With regard to the US post-War experience, the key to success was not “financial repression”. The keys were the dismantling of New Deal programs, the general freeing-up of the economy, a reduction in government spending (government spending collapsed in the two years immediately after the War and then essentially flat-lined for a few years), and a currency linked to the world’s largest gold reserve. It was the combination of economic strength and restrained government spending, not the combination of inflation and interest-rate suppression, that enabled the US government to greatly reduce its debt burden.

In today’s world, we can safely assume that a general freeing-up of the economy leading to strong real growth is not on the cards.

To envisage what would happen in response to financial repression over the years ahead, bear in mind that if the central bank stops one pressure valve from working then the pressure will blow out somewhere else. For example, by monetising enough government debt the Fed could create a situation involving high price inflation and a low interest expense for the US government, but even in the unlikely event that the US government tried to its rein-in its spending the non-interest-related cost of running the government would surge due to price inflation. As a result, the total amount of government debt would rise rapidly and the Fed would be forced to ramp-up its bond monetisation to keep a lid on government bond yields, causing more “inflation” and giving another substantial boost to the cost of running the government, and so on.

Summing up, in a high-inflation low-growth environment, financial repression would lead to a downward spiral in currency purchasing power and an upward spiral in government indebtedness.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

A basic and very important fact of which hardly anyone is aware is that a general rise in asset prices has nothing to do with economic progress. It is, instead, driven totally by an increase in the supply of money. To put it another way, the general appreciation of asset prices is driven totally by the depreciation of money.

For example, there is no reason other than an increase in the money supply for broad stock market indices to rise over the long-term. The prices of some stocks would rise due to certain companies gaining an advantage and becoming more valuable relative to other companies, but the overall market would not rise in the absence of monetary inflation. An implication is that if the money supply were stable then dividends would constitute 100% of the long-term returns on investment achieved by the owners of broad index funds.

For another example, there is no reason other than an increase in the money supply that residential property prices should rise over the long-term. The prices of some houses would rise due to renovations or zoning changes or some locations increasing in relative popularity, but the median house price would not increase over the long-term in the absence of monetary inflation. In other words, the increase in the median house price is solely due to monetary inflation. This means that if the market value of your house gained 25% over a period and the median house price gained 20% over the same period, then 80% of the increase in the market value of your house was due to the depreciation of money.

A source of confusion is that over the past 50 years asset prices have tended to rise much faster than the prices of goods and services, creating the impression that the price increases are mostly real (that is, not driven by the depreciation of money). This has happened due to the nature of monetary inflation and policies designed to boost the prices of assets.

An important characteristic of monetary inflation is that the new money does not get injected uniformly throughout the economy and therefore does not affect prices in a uniform manner. As explained in a TSI commentary in 2019, this is one of the three reasons that the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM), which holds that the change in the “general price level” is proportional to the change in the money supply, doesn’t work.

Instead of a uniform rise in prices in response to monetary inflation, different prices get affected in different ways at different times depending on who the first receivers of the new money happen to be. In the case where the new money is created by the central bank as part of a QE program, which has happened a lot since 2008, the first receivers of the new money are bond speculators. This makes the owners of financial assets the initial and main beneficiaries of the money creation. In the case where the new money is loaned into existence by commercial banks, the main beneficiaries are the owners of assets that are purchased with the borrowed money. Over the past few decades a sizable portion of the borrowing from commercial banks has been related to the purchase of real estate (most buyers of houses are able to borrow a high percentage of the purchase price), causing the owners of houses to be among the main beneficiaries.

As an aside, monetary inflation is responsible for the widening of the “wealth gap” that has occurred over the past 40 years, because it benefits the asset rich at the expense of the asset poor. The expanding wealth gap is now being touted as the justification for greater government intervention and/or taxation, almost always by people with no understanding of the underlying cause.

As another aside, the big inflation-related change that happened during 2020-2021 is that a large increase in the money supply was accompanied by government actions that simultaneously destroyed supply chains and super-charged consumer spending.

Monetary inflation’s pivotal role in boosting/distorting asset prices is why we pay so much attention to it and so little attention to the more popular ‘fundamentals’. In some cases the more popular fundamentals, market-wide corporate earnings being a good example, are themselves just functions of the monetary inflation rate.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary published at TSI]

This is a follow-up to our 25th April piece titled “Inconvenient Facts” in which we summarised some of the issues that are ignored or brushed over by many proponents of a fast transition to a world dominated by renewable energy sources. The follow-up was prompted by a recent RealVision.com interview of Wil VanLoh, the CEO of Quantum Energy Partners, by Kyle Bass. The charts displayed below were taken from this interview.

To summarise the summary included in our earlier piece, it takes a lot of energy and minerals to build renewable energy systems and it takes years for a renewable energy system to ‘pay back’ the energy that was used to build it. Consequently, achieving the energy transition goals set by many governments will require increasing production of fossil fuels for at least the next ten years, which, in turn, will require substantially increased investment in fossil fuel production and distribution (pipelines, terminals, storage facilities and ships). In addition, achieving today’s energy transition goals will necessitate substantially increased production of certain minerals, meaning that it will require more mining.

With regard to the need for more mining to bring about the Sustainable Energy Transition (SET), the top section of the following chart compares the quantities of minerals required to build a conventional car with the quantities required to build an electric car. The bottom section of the same chart does a similar comparison of fossil-fuel (natural gas and coal) power generation and renewable (solar, on-shore wind and off-shore wind) power generation.

The next chart illustrates the increase in the production of several minerals that will have to happen by 2030 to achieve the current energy transition goals. Of particular interest to us, it shows that over the next eight years copper and zinc production will have to double, manganese production will have to increase by 5-times, nickel production will have to increase by 11-times and lithium production will have to increase by 18-times.

On a related matter, mining is an energy-intensive process. Moreover, the bulk of the increased mining required to meet the current SET goals will occur in places where the only economically-viable sources of energy will be fossil-fuelled power stations or local diesel-fuelled generation. This means that the increase in mining required for the energy transition will, itself, require increased production of coal, natural gas and diesel.

Soaring prices of oil, natural gas, coal and oil-based products (gasoline and diesel) have focused the attention of senior Western politicians on the urgent need for more oil and natural gas production. However, today’s supply shortages are due to a decade of under-investment in hydrocarbon production, which, in turn, is a) the result of political and social pressure NOT to invest in such production, b) a problem that even in a best-case scenario will take many years to resolve, and c) a problem that will be exacerbated by chastising oil companies and threatening government intervention to cap prices.

If it were possible to do so, ‘greedy’ oil and oil-refining companies would be very happy to flip a switch and increase production to take advantage of current high prices. The reality is that it isn’t possible and that increasing production to a meaningful extent will require large, long-term investments. But why should these companies take the risks associated with major investments to boost long-term supply when they continue to be pressured by both governments and their own shareholders to prioritise reduced carbon emissions above all other considerations and when there is enormous uncertainty regarding future government energy policy?

[This blog post is a excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

In terms of effect on the money supply, reverse repurchase agreements (reverse repos) are the opposite of quantitative easing (QE). Whereas every dollar of QE adds one dollar to the money supply plus one dollar to bank reserves at the Fed (bank reserves are not counted in the money supply), every dollar of reverse repos subtracts one dollar from the money supply plus one dollar from bank reserves at the Fed. Consequently, although reverse repos are not done with the primary aim of tightening monetary conditions, they effectively are a form of quantitative tightening (QT).

Unlike QE, reverse repos are temporary. To be more specific, the money removed from the banking system via a reverse repo will be returned within 24 hours unless a new reverse repo is created to replace the expiring one. However, the following chart shows that since April of last year the Fed has not only been rolling over or replacing expired reverse repos, but also has been adding to the outstanding pile by creating new reverse repos. As a result, the outstanding pile of reverse repos now amounts to $2.16 trillion. This means that the Fed’s reverse repo program has removed $2.16 trillion from the US economy since the beginning of April-2021.

From April-2021 until March-2022 the Fed was adding money to the economy via QE and simultaneously removing money from the economy via reverse repos. The amount of money being added via QE was greater than or equal to the amount being subtracted via reverse repos until early-December of last year, at which time the Fed became a net subtractor from the US money supply and US bank reserves.

One implication is that even though the Fed officially won’t start QT until this month, for all intents and purposes QT has been happening for about six months. Another implication is that the Fed now has more than two trillion dollars that it could inject into the economy simply by allowing existing reverse repos to expire. This could enable the Fed to boost the money supply over the months ahead while pretending to do QT.