coolhand's Account Talk

Very important talks transpiring this weekend:

This weekend is certainly the single most important period for us to be aware of since the early days after 9/11 and the final days of the Cold War. This is because the global economic structure may be about to change.

The financial minds behind most of the world’s more economically important countries are meeting in Washington this weekend as an official part of the G-7 finance ministers’ meeting. The G-7 — made up of the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom — are meeting to discuss the global financial crisis. Later in the weekend they will be joined the rest of the G-20 countries, representing the world’s 20 largest economies. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank also have delegations present, as they will be integral in implementing whatever decisions are made by the G-7 and G-20.

These talks are shaping up to be as critical as those seen in Bretton Woods, the site of the 1943 financial summit that laid the groundwork for the post-World War II global economic structure. The global financial crisis has evolved from being about single countries and “just” economics into something much grander. The global financial crisis is now a political one where these states will define how economic life will operate, and lay the groundwork for what is to come.

With the way the meetings over the next three days are set up, it looks as if the G-7 is coming toward a plan of action today, Oct. 10. It is then up to the G-7 members to get the rest of the world on board — not a small task since most countries are looking out for themselves at the moment.

The meetings will be progressing as follow:

First, the G-7 is meeting as this piece is being written, digesting all that has happened in the past few days and coming up with a rough game plan to operate from. Global credit markets have seized up, and any plan with a hope of success must focus on injecting — perhaps even forcing — liquidity into the system.

Second, the G-7 will direct the International Monetary Fund and World Bank — which operationally, if not technically, report to the G-7 — to communicate this plan to the rest of the G-20 in a swarm of bilateral meetings to be held late Oct. 10 after the G-7 summit concludes, with more of the same scheduled for Oct. 11. The intent of this batch of meetings is to bring the entire G-20 on board with the rough game plan, and hammer out the worst of the inevitable disagreements.

Then, at 6 p.m. Eastern time Oct. 11, all of the G-20 will meet to hammer out the final details of how to address the credit crisis.

There will, however, be one exception to such a “smooth” process. Immediately after today’s G-7 summit the G-7 representatives will be meeting with Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin for dinner. Russia is one of the few countries — the others being Saudi Arabia and China — that sits on a massive amount of cash, but unlike the other two, Moscow has been looking for ways to secure its own political needs and spite the West. This is most likely why Russia is getting its own special session with the G-7 followed up by bilateral meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and the delegations from the United Kingdom, Italy and India the morning of Oct. 11. Put simply, Russia represents a wild card that needs to be dealt with independently.

It is not clear how exactly the G-7 will attack the problem, but they have most of those who possess the capability of influencing the global crisis in one city at the moment. This weekend — and especially that 6 p.m. meeting of the G-20 tomorrow — will be a defining moment for the entire world.

History is being made — don’t take your eyes off it.
 
Important Read Here

Red Alert: The G-7 -- Geopolitics, Politics and the Financial Crisis
Stratfor Today » October 10, 2008 | 1926 GMT

The finance ministers of the G-7 countries are meeting in Washington. The first announcements on the meetings will come this weekend. It is not too extreme to say that the outcome of these meetings could redefine how the financial markets work, certainly for months and perhaps for a generation. The Americans are arguing that the regime of intervention and bailouts be allowed to continue. Others, like the British, are arguing for what in effect would be the nationalization of financial markets on a global scale. It is not clear what will be decided, but it is clear that this meeting matters.
Related Link

* The International Economic Crisis and Stratfor’s Methodology
* The Financial Crisis in the United States

The meetings will extend through the weekend to include members of the G-20 countries, which together account for about 90 percent of the global economy. This meeting was called because previous steps have not freed up lending between financial institutions, and the financial problem has increasingly become an economic one, affecting production and consumption in the global economy. The political leadership of these countries is under extreme pressure from the public to do something to solve — or at least alleviate — the problem.

Underlying this political pressure is a sense that the financial class, people who run global financial institutions, have failed to behave responsibly and effectively, and have therefore lost their legitimacy. The expectation, reasonable or not, is that the political system will now supplant these managers and impose at least a temporary solution. The finance ministers therefore have a political mandate, almost global in scope, to act decisively. The question is what they will do?

That question then divides further into two parts. The first is whether they will try to craft a single, global, integrated solution. The second is the degree to which they will take control of the financial system — and inter-financial institution lending in particular. (A primary reason for the credit crunch is that banks are currently afraid to lend — even to each other.) Thus far, attempts at solutions on the whole have been national rather than international. In addition, they have been built around incentivizing certain action and increasing the available money in the system.

So far, this hasn’t worked. The first problem is that financial institutions have not increased interbank lending significantly because they are concerned about the unknowns in the borrower’s balance sheet, and about the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans. With even large institutions failing, the fear is that other institutions will fail, but since the identity of the ones that will fail is unknown, lending on any terms — with or without government money — is imprudent. There is more lending to non-financial corporations than to financial ones because fewer unknowns are involved. Therefore, in the United States, infusions and promises of infusion of funds have not solved the basic problem: the uncertain solvency of the borrower.

The second problem is the international character of the crisis. An example from the Icelandic meltdown is relevant. The government of Iceland promised to repay Icelandic depositors in the island country’s failed banks. They did not extend the guarantee to non-Icelandic depositors. Partly they simply didn’t have the cash, but partly the view has been that taking care of one’s own takes priority. Countries do not want to bail out foreigners, and different governments do not want to assume the liabilities of other nations. The nature of political solutions is always that politicians respond to their own constituencies, not to people who can’t vote for them.

This weekend some basic decisions have to be made. The first is whether to give the bailouts time to work, to increase the packages or to accept that they have failed and move to the next step. The next step is for governments and central banks to take over decision making from financial institutions, and cause them to lend. This can be done in one of two ways. The first is to guarantee the loans made between financial institutions so that solvency is not an issue and risk is eliminated. The second is to directly take over the lending process, with the state dictating how much is lent to whom. In a real sense, the distinction between the two is not as significant as it appears. The market is abolished and wealth is distributed through mechanisms created by the state, with risk eliminated from the system, or more precisely, transferred from the lender to the taxing authority of the state.

The more complex issue is how to manage this on an international scale. For example, American banks lend to European banks. If the United States comes up with a plan which guarantees loans to U.S. banks but not European banks, and Europeans lend to Europe and not the United States, the integration of the global economy will very quickly shatter, leading to significant limitations on international trade, currency convertibility and so on. You will nationalize economies that can’t stand being purely national.

At the same time, there is no global mechanism for managing radical solutions. In taking over lending or guarantees, the administrative structure is everything. Managing the interbank-lending of the global economy is something for which there is no institution. And even with coordination, finance ministries and central banks would find it difficult to bear the burden — not to mention managing the system’s Herculean size and labyrinthine complexity. But if the G-7 in effect nationalize global financial systems and do it without international understandings and coordination, the consequences will be immediate and serious.

The G-7 is looking hard for a solution that will not require this level of intrusion, both because they don’t want to abolish markets even temporarily, and more important, because they have no idea how to manage this on a global scale. They very much want to have the problem solved with liquidity injections and bailouts. Their inclination is to give the current regime some more time. The problem is that the global equity markets are destroying value at extremely high rates and declines are approaching historic levels.

In other words, a crisis in the financial system is becoming an economic problem — and that means public pressure will surge, not decline. Therefore, it is plausible that they might choose to ask for what FDR did in 1933, a bank holiday, which in this case would be the suspension of trading on equity markets globally for several days while administrative solutions are reached. We have no information whatsoever that they are thinking of this, but in starting to grapple with a problem of this magnitude — and searching for solutions on this scale — it is totally understandable that they might like to buy some time.

It is not clear what they will decide. Fundamental issues to watch for are whether they move from manipulating markets through government intrusions that leave the markets fundamentally free, or do they abandon free markets at least temporarily.

Another such issue is whether they can find a way to do this globally or whether it will be done nationally. If they do go international and suspending markets, the question is how they will unwind this situation. It will be easier to start this than to end it and state-controlled markets are usually not very attractive in the long run. But then again, neither is where we are now.

Taken with permission from www.stratfor.com
 
There are some extremely significant events unfolding as I write this. My previous post provides valuable insight into those events. The economic landscape is about to change and I suspect it will not be subtle. What it will look like remains to be seen, but in my view it will be an epic historical event.

That said, we should also take note that a couple days ago the SEC lifted its ban on short selling. This is actually a positive development IMO as it resets the previous trading structure. It may have taken a couple days for those that control the markets to reposition themselves once that happened, but it could lead to some significant upside. It may even have been part of a deal behind the scenes to help the market recover. But even this event will probably be eclipsed by the decisions that are made this weekend and in the near term future.

Whatever happens, the markets will probably continue to react with extreme volatility like we've been witnessing the past week. If it's to the upside those of us that are in stox may recover quickly. But it is also true that because we are talking about Government intervention on a global scale, we could slip further into the abyss.

But take heart friends, if your stuck like I am. The pain is everywhere and the public outcry is thunderous. These Governments must react and I'm fairly sure it will be in partnership with the financial elements of the markets. Even they are in pain. Something has to give and failure is not an option.
 
If and when they swoop down, the feeding frenzy will begin:

Vultures Circle Wall Street, Hesitate To feed

Wall Street now has the weekend to mull over one of its worst weeks ever.

Over eight days, the Dow has lost just under 2,400 points, or 22.1 percent. The last year has seen the Dow fall more than 40 percent.

But some see all of this as an opportunity.

"Vulture" investors (think Birchtree...LOL), as they are called, have raised tens of billions of dollars over the past year in anticipation of being able to buy distressed assets and debt at discounted prices. When things hit rock bottom, they plan to swoop in and take advantage.
 
I think we are going up all week. We may not look back either. I wouldn't be too quick to sell into any rally. The amount of cash sitting on the sidelines can easily push SPX back up to 1400 over the next few months.
 
I think we are going up all week. We may not look back either. I wouldn't be too quick to sell into any rally. The amount of cash sitting on the sidelines can easily push SPX back up to 1400 over the next few months.
This could very well happen except it definitely will not be a slow and steady move up (best case scenerio). The market is still quite volatile and more than likely we will see large swings up and down. Hopefully we can use our 2 IFT's wisely.:nuts:
 
This could very well happen except it definitely will not be a slow and steady move up (best case scenerio). The market is still quite volatile and more than likely we will see large swings up and down. Hopefully we can use our 2 IFT's wisely.:nuts:

I'm sure there will be some backing and filling and we'll see some volatility, but I'm pretty sure the bottom is in. Looking long. Maybe 3 months with only a few trades.
 
I'm sure there will be some backing and filling and we'll see some volatility, but I'm pretty sure the bottom is in. Looking long. Maybe 3 months with only a few trades.

CH, I have a question. Knowing that we're either already in, or heading
towards the bowls of a deep recession which could take 24-48 months
to break out of (my guess), are you saying that in 3-4 months we're
going to average higher on a consistant basis? I'm feeling really good
that a bottom may have been found. But after this Bear Rally is over
and we've bought up all the cheap stocks that are available, I fear we
could actually revisit this pricing area again. Volitility and Bear Rallies
aside, The picture isn't good for growth and Earnings. :confused:
 
You have to consider that the market is a discounting mechanism for the future and who says we are going into a recession. The market will rally up to six or nine months ahead of the economy bottoming. Past history demonstrates that there will generally be a second retest of the previous lows - but not always. There is just so much cash on the side lines and those 18 billion short shares could cover for the next three years. I'm not going to wait and take a chance on a retest - I'm digging in now and saving the dirt incase I get covered up. It's now or never - come hold me close.
 
CH, I have a question. Knowing that we're either already in, or heading
towards the bowls of a deep recession which could take 24-48 months
to break out of (my guess), are you saying that in 3-4 months we're
going to average higher on a consistant basis? I'm feeling really good
that a bottom may have been found. But after this Bear Rally is over
and we've bought up all the cheap stocks that are available, I fear we
could actually revisit this pricing area again. Volitility and Bear Rallies
aside, The picture isn't good for growth and Earnings. :confused:

Long term, we're probably in for some recessionary pain. But for now, I'm looking for an Intermediate Term rally. Could go on for a few months. Regarding pricing, fundamentals are relatively useless in a short to intermediate term trading strategy IMO. We have to watch the setups with respect to sentiment and any other indicators one might use.

This market will continue to be goosed and manipulated just like it's always been. Over the years we continued to see one bubble after another as the Fed pushed economic pain further to the right. They can only do that for so long before we're all punished, but we have to keep an open mind to anything and not get too caught up in media hype.
 
There has been a lot of pain dished out the past few weeks and being on the wrong side of the trade for it has been humbling, to say the least. Keep in mind that what we saw was an event of epic proportions. The last time we saw anything close to it was 21 years ago. Many traders have been caught at various levels of this downward spike. In any event, it seems as thought the market is beginning to heal itself. The credit markets appear to be unfreezing, which is a start to finding a bottom.

We may take some more punishment before we can finally call an Intermediate Term bottom and as for myself, I plan to continue to hold until we finally turn. It could be this week. I could be next week, It could even take longer, but I'm sure the smart money has its eye on the ridiculous valuations seen across various market sectors. The further down we go the more fuel we have sitting on the sidelines too.

I'm certainly hoping we don't go down any further, but we should not be surprised if we do. Just like many others in TSP I wish we had more flexibility to move in and out, but the TSP board in its infinite wisdom feels we should should put our money in a black hole and forget about it. This makes for a much more challenging trading environment, but then I don't have to tell you that.

So where are we right now; the Relative and absolute VIX continues to be very high, the Ted Spread is moving in the right direction. LIBOR too. These are the things we needed to see. They show that things are unfreezing in the banking industry. The fundamentals of the financial markets may be improving, too. If the Ted Spread and LIBOR continue to improve, this may be confirmation that a rally is getting close.
 
A few comments from the print edition of TWSJ Wednesday 10/15.
"If Libor remains elevated, a large number of home buyers may be unable to make their monthly mortgage payments when interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages reset higher next month. Rates on many of those mortgages are tethered to the three month Libor, and Citigroup estimates around $24 billion in such loans will reset in November, triggering more mortgage defaults. American homeowners are going to get uncomfortably familiar with Libor. On average, a 30 year fixed rate mortgage was 6.60% last Monday. In mid-September the average 30-year mortgage rate was 5.87%." It would appear that Libor is slowly moving in the right direction.
 
A few comments from the print edition of TWSJ Wednesday 10/15.
"If Libor remains elevated, a large number of home buyers may be unable to make their monthly mortgage payments when interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages reset higher next month. Rates on many of those mortgages are tethered to the three month Libor, and Citigroup estimates around $24 billion in such loans will reset in November, triggering more mortgage defaults. American homeowners are going to get uncomfortably familiar with Libor. On average, a 30 year fixed rate mortgage was 6.60% last Monday. In mid-September the average 30-year mortgage rate was 5.87%." It would appear that Libor is slowly moving in the right direction.

It would be financial suicide for banks to hold to a high LIBOR, as they well know, especially with large scale central banking intervention designed to alleviate the condition. Economically speaking, it's no more sustainable than continuing to allow mortgages to enter default.
 
No changes here. Market appears to be continuing it's bottoming process.

The Ted Spread and LIBOR continue to ease . If they keep moving in that direction we should begin to see lending activity normalize. There's still plenty of things that can turn this market back down and it will probably be quite awhile before government data shows a strong economy again, but we're due for an IT uptrend, albeit with volatility.
 
Good info coolhand. I was always curious how the market did based on the house, senate, and the president.
 
Back
Top