This is Deleveraging Not Deflation
By Mike
Swanson
Sep 15 2008 12:13PM
I went out of town last week to the Resource Investment
Conference in Las Vegas. I'll get to that in a second, but so much is
happening that this is going to be a longer message than usual. This
weekend we are seeing Lehman go broke, Merrill Lynch in a desperate buyout,
AIG try to fend of bankruptcy, and a frightening gap down in the market
this morning. And of course last weekend we saw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
get taken over by the government last Monday. That spurred a beefy gap up
that immediately got sold - and that selling pressure sparked a cascade of
selling, which in turned caused only what I can describe as a crash in gold
stocks.
That drop caused a lot of gold bugs to throw in the towel
and others to claim that we are now in a deflationary environment. I don't
think so, I think this environment can be best described as deleveraging.
Deflation is normally used to describe a decrease in the the general price
level or a decrease in the money supply. I do not see either one of these
happening right now. In fact consumer and producer prices are still growing
while the Fed is printing more money and will print enormous amounts of
money in the future as a result of its buyout of Fannie and Freddie.
That event is extremely inflationary, not
deflationary.
Yet, despite that fact last week the dollar rose in value
while gold fell.
Commodity prices have fallen sharply off of their highs of
the summer and that has caused many to claim we are now in deflation.
I disagree - I see this as a temporary and violent
correction in commodities due to widespread deleveraging in the financial
system and once that comes to an end we should see commodity prices and
gold reassert their market leadership.
What is clear is that we are in a bear market when it
comes to the broad market. Bear markets come through three main stages - in
the first stage market participants fail to recognize the reality of the
bear market and think that dips are just temporary corrections.
As their losses add up the second stage begins as the
reality of the bear market takes hold and people begin to recognize
problems in the economy and the markets. That is where we are now. In the
third and final stage there is a general liquidation as people sell out in
a panic in fear of suffering further losses. Each bear leg down also goes
through this cycle as a panic washout ends each downtrend and causes the
VIX and put/call ratio to spike up. But this cycle also runs the gamut of
the whole bear market and can take two or three years to play out.
We have seen structural changes to the stock market over
the past ten years that in some ways makes the market more different and
dangerous than it has ever been before - and that main change can be summed
up in one word leverage.
The bust in real estate and collapse of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac are a direct result of too much leverage in the banking system.
Real estate industry cheerleaders have been saying throughout this whole
real estate bust that the percentage of loans that were issued as
"subprime" were a small percentage of the overall mortgages and
therefore were not a problem. However, the real problem isn't the number of
subprime loans but the crazy leverage that banks and hedge funds went on to
buy too many of them. Fannie and Freddie failed due to the wild amount of
leverage that Congress allowed them to have.
When you look at the stock market itself over the past ten
years hedge funds have taken on a larger and larger role - and that means
so has leverage. Last year right at the market peak there was a record
amount of NYSE margin debt in the market - almost 50% more than that seen
at the 2000 market peak. At the same time so called "program
trading," which comes from hedge funds and institutional investors
reached a manic level a year ago. Back in the late 1990's about 20% of all
of the trades on the NYSE came from program trading. That level gradually
rose year after year as more hedge funds came into the market and reached
over 50% in 2004 and hit the crazy level of 90% for a few months in 2007
right before the credit crisis erupted.
Most hedge fund managers are not market wizards - and if we
have learned anything over the past year it is that hot shot institutional
traders that work for investment banks are not either. What we have seen is
mediocre traders that really don't know what they are doing use leverage
and trading models and programs to make investment decisions that have
turned out to be deeply flawed.
The problem is I don't know anyone who got rich in the
market using a trading program. Almost all trading programs are created
with formulas based on back tested data to match what the market did in the
past. If the market patterns change - and they never last forever - then
the trading program goes bust. The most famous hedge fund bust was the
Long-Term Capital hedge fund that used a mathematical formula to go on
margin approaching 100-1 leverage. And how many banks used mathematical
models to buy mortgages based on data that came from decades of rising real
estate prices? Once real estate topped and began a bear market the models
no longer worked.
All of this smacks to me of pure arrogance and stupidity.
In last weekend's Barrons there is an amazing letter from Anthony Piszel,
the CFO of Freddie Mac. In this letter Piszel tried to claimed that there
is nothing wrong with Freddie. He claimed that those that think Freddie
will go under need to look away from "Freddie Mac's fair-value balance
sheet to ascertain our financial condition. Freddie Mac is a buy-and-hold
investor- we invest in mortgages with the intent of holding them to
maturity. So today's mortgage valuations are less relevant a measure of our
financial condition, especially given the highly subjective nature of these
valuations in today's market."
In other words the market has been wrong to lower the value
of Freddie Mac's mortgage securities and we at Freddie Mac believe they
deserve more value than they have right now and if they did our balance
sheet would look fine so don't look at our balance sheet to figure out the
financial condition of our company, but instead listen to what we tell
you.
Two days after this letter was published Freddie Mac
accepted a takeover by the US government.


This same sort of arrogance has also been alive and well in
the hedge fund world - where there are traders that have been using massive
leverage based on mathematical models and are now blowing themselves up.
When I was Vegas last week I wondered into a hedge fund conference. I found
hedge fund managers and sellers of program trading and accounting software
milling around.
What struck me though were the titles of the seminars
these people were going to. Most of them had fancy sounding titles that
were designed to impress, but said nothing of substance.

For instance look at this photo I took of the morning
schedule for one of the seminar rooms. The second two titles full of hype
and no descriptive value refer to some sort of program trading software
while the first one is a fancy way of saying - "what do when you are
F***** - or to put it politely "what to do when you get margin calls
and redemptions and blow yourself up."
To me though these titles sum up what is happening right
now in the financial market. We are witnessing a wave of redemptions and
deleveraging coming from hedge funds that has been asserting tremendous
selling pressure on commodity stocks lately.
Oil and commodities were the best performing sectors in the
first half of this year and a lot of hedge fund and hot money flowed into
them. As those sectors peaked in July they corrected and that correction
turned into a mini-crash last week.
Forced selling was evident and at this point there are few
retail sellers left in the commodity markets - the sellers that remain -
and probably did most of the selling last week - are hedge fund managers
who never entered their positions as investments or due to fundamentals,
but because their models said to do it.
There is something attractive to using a model when you run
institutional money. If you have no track record or little experience in
the market you can sell your fund by talking up its fancy sounding trading
program. And as you run the fund you can use the models to give yourself
the confidence to go on margin and leverage the fund up to make more money.
It all works though until the trend that has made the model works comes to
an end.
That happened with mortgage securities last year and
happened with commodity stocks this month as they reached oversold
technical readings never seen before and fell anyway.
The result was forced selling and a mini-crash in gold and
gold stocks that has practically caused anyone to sell to do so. And a
stock market on the verge of going into a mini-crash today.

When I went to the gold investment conference it was like
walking into a ghost town. I got there just as gold stocks were trading
down 10% for the day. I had never seen one of these conferences like this
before. There were about a quarter of the booths as there normally are and
hardly anyone was there. It made me wonder if in fact everyone had actually
sold out. It certainly was a good sign from a contrarian standpoint

It wasn't just the number of booths that was surprising,
but the lack of people listening to the presentations that was shocking.
Over half the seats were empty. Someone told me it hadn't been this empty
since the gold bear market bottom around 2000.

And the people who were in attendance weren't too chipper.
To top it off there was even a black bird flying around. I couldn't take
the negative energy and didn't stay around long, meeting people outside of
the show.

I try to use trading tactics to find entry points in larger
trends. I had thought in the summer that gold stocks would breakout and run
through the end of the year in part in response to the coming blow up of
Freddie and Fannie Mae. Based on this belief I use technical trading
tactics to pick gold stock bottoms twice in the past seven weeks. When gold
stocks bounced and then turned back down to go through my buy point I
realized that I was wrong to think I had bought a bottom and sold. My stop
loss points got hit.
The problem is with hedge funds and big investors who don't
use a good game plan when it comes to money management. They refused to
recognize that their trading models were no longer working and rode out
their positions for huge losses. As a result they ended up selling in
panic. And then another problem is retail investors who bought with no game
plan and then sold out too.
Right now I don't have a position in gold stocks, but I'm
going to watch them carefully again in the coming weeks. They do appear
that they may have put in a bottom. I am worried though about the broad
market possibly weakening them in the short-term, because the market is in
a very precarious position, but if gold stocks base and provide a good
entry point I will buy them again.
This is how a trader has to think, but if you are an
investor in gold stocks then it really makes no sense to sell at this
point. If you held through an over 50% drop that took place in less than
two months it really makes no sense to sell. Unless gold is going to $500
there simply should not be much more downside to these gold stocks even if
they made new lows again.
And I don't believe gold is going to $500, because I
believe this correction isn't caused by deflation, but by hedge funds and
large institutional investors who were overly leveraged blowing themselves
up and selling to get off margin and to meet redemptions - a process that
could last into the end of this year.
To put it this way if you held through a 50% drop as an
investor it makes no sense to sell out in fear of another possible 10%
drop. Large producing gold stocks are not going to zero.
We may have also reached a point with gold stocks that even
if these people keep selling the stocks won't make new lows and fall hard
anymore, because on a fundamental basis they have reached levels that make
them so cheap that a bid from industry insiders and value investors could
keep them from falling further.
Looking back at what has happened I think there is a very
simple fundamental story going on - that is ultimately very bullish for
gold. In July it became clear to the Fed and Treasury that Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac were going to have to be taken over by the government. The
market was on shaky ground at the time so they took steps to intervene
ahead of a takeover.
When Paulson announced the takeover of Fannie and Freddie
last weekend he said he was acting at that moment, because the market was
in a calming period. In his written announcement of the takeover he said
the market was in a "time out" that made acting now prudent.
The Fed, Treasury, and SEC created this short-lived
"time out" period. First the SEC created new short selling rules
for a host of banking stocks in July to force a short-squeeze rally in
them. Then the Treasury acted with the G-8 in early August to start some
sort of rally in the dollar. These two moves helped spur a short-lived
rally in the stock market in August, but more importantly started a
correction in commodities and gold. That correction picked up steam and
took a life of its own when it reached the point that it hit stop loss
points and forced leveraged players to exit the market - that forced
selling created what can only be described as a crash in gold stocks last
week.
These moves were necessary to make so that a takeover of
Fannie and Freddie could happen in a time of relative calm in the market.
Imagine if the takeover was announced in July or right now what could have
happened to the market.
I do not believe that the government is constantly
intervening in the gold market. To pressure gold all they have to do is
work together with several central banks to knock down the price through
key support levels from time to time - or do so on the opposite end in the
currency markets - and the selling will naturally pick up speed. This seems
to be what happened in August. But in September I see the selling coming
primarily from market participants stuck with huge losses instead of from
than government intervention.
As a trader though I don't factor manipulation into my
decisions. I base my decision on charts and trends in order to quantify my
risk and set stop loss points. If I get stopped out due to a move caused by
Fed intervention that is fine, because that intervention will likely drive
the market much lower than my stop loss point and I rather not get hurt by
it. As an investor one has to simply decide how much of ones assets one is
comfortable holding for the long-term no matter what temporarily losses
could occur.
Ultimately the Fred and and Fannie news is going to be
bullish for gold, because it is going to mean that the Treasury Department
is going to end up printing hundreds of billions of dollars over the next
two years or so to pay for their losses - and that addition to the national
debt will eventually be a drag on the dollar. This is why I find the
deflation story hard to swallow.
That is the future. Last week and now though is a different
story. In periods of deleveraging investors sell assets and go into cash.
Since most margin is done through dollars that means a demand for dollars
to raise cash to get off margin. And once institutional investors are in
cash their money flows into money market funds and Treasury bills - hence
the rising bond prices in the face of what will eventually be an even more
inflationary environment.
I have put together a special stock market for beginners
guide available to those that subscribe to my free weekly newsletter, which
will update you on my future moves in the market. To get the newsletter
just go here.
Michael Swanson
****
Michael
Swanson is the President of TimingWallStreet,
Inc., which owns WallStreetWindow. WallStreetWindow
contains the opinions of Swanson is provided for
informational purposes only. Neither Swanson nor TimingWallstreet,
Inc. provide individual investment advice and will not advise
you personally concerning the nature, potential, value,
or of any particular stock or investment strategy. To
the extent that any of the information contained in
this article may be deemed investment advice, such
information is impersonal and not tailored to the
investment needs of any specific person. Past results
of TimingWallStreet, WallStreetWidow, or Michael
Swanson are not necessarily indicative of future performance.
Michael Swanson, entities that he controls. family, and associates
may have positions in securities mentioned in this
article of on WallStreetWindow and may close them at
any time.
TimingWallStreet, Inc. does
not represent the accuracy nor does it warranty the accuracy,
completeness or timeliness of the statements made on its web
site or in its email alerts. The information provided
should therefore be used as a basis for continued,
independent research into a security referenced in
this article so that the Subscriber forms his or her
own opinion regarding any investment in a security
mentioned in it. The Subscriber therefore agrees that
he or she alone bears complete responsibility for their
own investment research and decisions. We are not and do not
represent ourselves to be a registered investment adviser
or advisory firm or company. You should consult a qualified
financial advisor or broker before making any investment
decision and to help you evaluate any information you
may receive from this article.
Consequently, the Subscriber
understands and agrees that by using any of TimingWallStreet
services, either directly or indirectly, TimingWallStreet,
Inc. shall not be liable to anyone for any loss, injury
or damage resulting from the use of or information
attained from TimingWallStreet or any of its
services.