RBS cuts 3,500 investment banking jobsT)

A branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland is pictured in London, on August 5, 2011.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Royal Bank of Scotland is to cut an additional 3,500 jobs
• It has already announced 2,000 investment banking job cuts as it shrinks its risky operations
• The investment bank will have 13,400 staff within a year, down from the end of September 2011 number of nearly 19,000

(Financial Times) -- Royal Bank of Scotland is to cut an additional 3,500 jobs as the state-controlled bank rapidly shrinks its investment banking activities in response to the worsening economic outlook and wide ranging reforms of the banking sector due to take effect before the end of the decade.

Stephen Hester, chief executive, on Thursday outlined plans to restructure RBS' wholesaling or investment banking operations into two divisions and withdraw from activities such as cash equity broking and merger and acquisition advisory work that were aggressively expanded by former disgraced chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.

Risk weighted assets, under Basel III regulatory definitions, will be shrunk to £150bn from £225bn under the restruring plan.

The bank will continue to operate in the fixed income and debt raising markets where it has a strong position but reduce its dependence on wholesale funding markets which have frozen up in the last three years.

Since taking over in 2009, Mr Hester has shrunk RBS's balance sheet by £600bn following the disastrous acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro in 2008 by Sir Fred, which forced the bank to seek a government bail-out.

It has already announced 2,000 investment banking job cuts as part of Mr Hester's attempts to shrink the highly profitable but risky operations and focus on lending to corporate and institutional clients.

The investment bank, which will be restructured into a markets division and an international banking unit, will have 13,400 staff within a year, down from the end of September 2011 number of nearly 19,000.

However, people close to the bank have said that the staff numbers could fall to below below 10,000 in a worse case scenario.

The two business units will target a return on allocated equity exceeding the cost of capital, currently estimated at 12 per cent, in the medium term.

The unprofitable cash equities, corporate broking, equity capital markets, and mergers and acquisitions businesses will be closed or sold.

"Our goal from these changes is to be more focused for customers, more conservatively funded, more efficient and with better, more stable returns for shareholders overall," Mr Hester said in a statement.

The investment bank has been RBS's growth engine in the last three years, producing an average return on equity of 19 per cent, but Mr Hester made clear on Thursday the bank had to respond to the challenges thrown up by the current economic crisis.

But pressure mounted on the bank just before Christmas, when George Osborne, chancellor, said the bank, which is 83 per cent-owned by the government, should "scale back [its] risky activities".

The government has also accepted proposals from the Vickers commission, which was set up following the financial crisis and recommended splitting investment banking activities and retail banking operations in the UK's leading banks by 2019.

Shares in RBS were 9 per cent higher at 23.75p in morning London trading.

U.S. acts against Chinese oil trader

The U.S. is taking action against three firms in Asia over oil deals with Iran.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• U.S. has slapped sanctions on three firms including a major Chinese oil trader
• US State Department said penalties would be imposed on China's Zhuhai Zhenrong

(CNN) -- The US has slapped sanctions on three firms including a major Chinese oil trader for selling refined oil products to Iran, just days after US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner travelled to Beijing to press for Chinese support on Iran sanctions.

The US State Department announced late Thursday night that penalties would be imposed on China's Zhuhai Zhenrong, the Singapore-based oil trader Kuo oil, and the UAE-based independent oil trader FAL.

While the measures are unlikely to have a big immediate impact on these three companies, they send a strong warning signal to energy companies working in Iran at a time when the US has been canvassing Asian countries for more support in isolating Tehran.

The US State Department called the sanctions against the three firms an "important" step in convincing Iran to change its behaviour, and highlighted the "potential connection between Iran's revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of its proliferation [of] sensitive nuclear activities."

A spokesperson for Zhuhai Zhenrong said the company had not sold gasoline to Iran. "We've never exported a barrel, not even a wee bit of refined fuel to Iran," said Zheng Mei, director of the public affairs department.

According to the statement, the three firms violated US restrictions on supplying Iran with refined oil products that were passed in 2010. "Under the sanctions imposed today, all three companies are barred from receiving US export licenses, US Export Import Bank financing, and loans over $10m from US financial institutions," the US State Department said.

Importing refined oil products like petrol and diesel is crucial for Iran's economy because the country doesn't have sufficient refining infrastructure to process enough of its own crude into products.

China is the biggest buyer of Iran's crude oil and, according to the US State Department, is also a significant source of gasoline for Iran, but Chinese companies have until now avoided sanctions from the US.

China supported the most recent United Nations sanctions resolution on Iran in 2010, and some analysts believe that in exchange for that support the US may have turned a blind eye to Chinese companies which may have violated US laws. Last year the US placed sanctions on seven companies for selling refined oil products to Iran, but none of those were Chinese.

Zhuhai Zhenrong is a state-owned oil trader based in Southern China. The company has a special mandate from the State Council to do crude trades that offset military trade debt with Middle Eastern countries, according to their website.

Ms Zheng, the spokesperson for Zhenrong, said the company would continue buying Iranian crude. "Zhuhai Zhenrong's trade with Iran is carried out under the two governments. The trade accords with international law and Chinese laws and regulations," she said.

"What we've signed with Iran are long-term contracts and we import around 12m tonnes of crude from Iran each year," Ms Zheng said. "We've never exported gasoline to Iran. This is out of thin air! "

The US State Department said Zhuhai Zhenrong is Iran's largest supplier of refined oil products, brokering sales of gasoline worth more than $500m between July 2010 and January 2011.

The sanctions are likely to have little immediate impact on Zhenrong because the company does very little, if any, business in the US.

Additional reporting by Gwen Chen in Beijing

Not so far apart

A FEW years ago a prominent former treasury official came to lunch at The Economistand predicted that the debt level would become a national preoccupation. He expected Americans would grow weary of a large debt burden, but refused to say whether Americans would demand fewer services or higher taxes as a result. It turns out he was correct: Americans are both concerned about the nation's debt, and confused about how to solve the problem. Often lost in this confusion is the important distinction between the current deficit (not such a big deal) and the long-term structural debt (a big problem). The best solution for paying down America's long-term debt is some combination of spending cuts and tax increases. And if you listen closely to both Republicans and Democrats (at least the non-crazy ones) they actually seem to agree on that. Unfortunately they're talking past each other.

This post by Jonathan Chait illustrates the point. He accuses Glenn Hubbard, an advisor to Mitt Romney and Dean of Columbia Business School (full disclosure: I was once his student), of misunderstanding the extent of the long-term debt problem. Referencing the chart below, Mr Hubbard claims that the debt problem is real, largely caused by increases in future spending, and may result in very high future taxes.

We see two scenarios in these charts. The extended-baseline scenario assumes current laws (like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the implementation of Obamacare) will not be changed in the future, while the alternative fiscal scenario assumes that "widely expected" changes to current law (ie, revenue as a % of GDP remains the same and entitlement spending is not meaningfully cut) come to pass. According to the CBO, the extended-baseline scenario—what it takes to keep debt levels stable—poses significant costs.

Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

Mr Chait accuses Mr Hubbard of misreading the chart and pushing a lop-sided agenda focused on cutting spending. But Mr Hubbard's position is simply that long-term spending is unsustainable and that the debt problem cannot be solved by tax increases alone. That conclusion is not so different from the research Mr Chait cites from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. There is more common ground here than Mr Chait lets on.

Cutting entitlements and raising future taxes does not necessarily leave people worse off. People live progressively longer and the quality of health-care services, so far, has increased and gotten more expensive. So in principle, you can decrease the length of retirement or the level of benefits paid (especially to higher earners who live longer) and still provide a similar present value of real benefits to future generations. A problem with entitlements is that each new generation expects more than the last, longer retirement and the latest and greatest in health-care technology.

Record-high levels of revenue as a percent of GDP may not be so bad either, so long as society gets progressively richer. Taxing citizens 30% of GDP is a much bigger deal in Angola than Denmark because Angolans have much less income to spare. Though for developed countries the distributional consequences are tricky if income inequality continues to widen. Also there can be second order effects from higher taxes, resulting in lower growth. Fairness to future generations is also important. Punting reform to the future makes it more expensive and places a large burden on the young. Striking the right balance is hard, but possible, and the sooner the better. It is not clear that the current law, associated with the extended baseline scenario, gets it right. That probably requires a more efficent tax code and redefining retirement expectations. It belabours the point of just how necessary a thoughtful dialogue is.

America’s next CEO?

Paint it grey
Start with the advantages. The most important fact about Mr Romney is that he is a non-ideological man who did something that America needs a lot more of. In 2002 he was elected to govern Massachusetts, normally a Democratic stronghold. He passed a version of health-care reform that is at once his proudest achievement and his biggest liability. Back then a system based on obliging everyone to buy private health insurance was a conservative idea, and Mr Romney did a good job of working with a hostile legislature to get it passed. (Today, his party viscerally opposes Mr Obama’s health reforms, which are closely modelled on Mr Romney’s; such are the twists of politics.) He also turned round Massachusetts’s finances, just as he had earlier righted the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Mr Romney needs to make these successes count for more than they have so far. Once the primaries are over, and America’s independents rather than the Republican Party faithful become the electorate to win over, he may be able to.
Second, Mr Romney has something that the president and his Republican rivals sorely lack: business experience. For 25 years he made himself and the management consultancies BCG and Bain a lot of money by making companies more efficient which, yes, sometimes means firing people, but also drives economic growth (see article). So far, Mr Romney has done a poor job of defending himself against attacks which are really aimed at the creative destruction which is the essence of capitalism itself. He says he created a net 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain. That figure is impossible to prove, but he could do more to argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. His task has not been helped by disgraceful attacks from fellow-Republicans on corporate restructuring.
Third, Mr Romney seems sure-footed. It is hard to think of a single misstep in this campaign. He may be wooden, but no scandal has ever attached to him. His family life is impeccably monogamous and progenitive. Those who have worked closely with him tend to admire him. On both the economic and the foreign-policy sides, he has already put together impressive and above all sensibly moderate teams.
The debit side of the ledger
A useful list, to be sure: but can it outweigh the negatives? Mr Romney’s pragmatism has an inconvenient flip side: no one is quite sure where he stands. The Republican base does not think he is reliable on such things as gay rights and abortion. That will not matter so much to independents (who will probably also accept that any Republican has to say a few mad things to win a nomination). But people have to trust a president on the main issues, and, despite publishing a long economic manifesto, Mr Romney remains vague over how a lot of it is to be accomplished.

Explore our interactive map and guide to the race for the Republican candidacy

It is not at all clear how he would reform America’s ruinously expensive health-care and pensions systems. His views on what he wants to do about America’s 12m illegal immigrants are also unsettlingly gnomic. And where he has been clear, he has sometimes been wrong: his insistence that, on day one of his presidency, he will brand China as a currency manipulator represents dangerous pandering to populists. His pledge to cut federal spending to no more than 20% of GDP, a sop to his party’s fiscal extremists, would also be dangerous if applied as quickly as he implies.
Mr Romney will have other problems in wooing the electorate. He would be the richest candidate ever to win a big-party nomination and he reeks of privilege. His father was a governor as well, and he himself studied law at Harvard. On the other hand, Mr Obama is a millionaire several times over, can give a fair impression of having come from the planet Vulcan, and also studied law at Harvard. Mr Romney’s lack of charisma is a problem; but perhaps America wants fewer soaring speeches and more pragmatic restructuring plans.
Mr Romney’s last difficulty is one that should not be a problem at all. He is a Mormon and, despite Mormons’ protestations to the contrary, a third of Americans do not consider them to be Christians. There is not much Mr Romney can do about this. He could explain the Mormons’ extraordinary missionary work, but he can hardly risk saying that it is not really any more incredible that God communicated His plans to man in upstate New York in 1820 than He did in Palestine in 0AD. We recall, however, that America was for decades “not ready” for a Catholic president, or for a black one. Eventually, Americans thought better of those attitudes. Prejudice would be a silly reason for the Republicans to reject a man who offers their best chance of beating Mr Obama.

Gold, God and forgiveness

 Gold, God and forgiveness

DO BANKERS inevitably go to hell? What many people today merely hope will come to pass was for Christians in the early 1400s a matter of faith. After all, the Bible, like the Koran, was explicit in its condemnation of lending money at interest, the basis of most banking operations. So in many parts of Christendom moneylending was left to Jews. In several northern cities of medieval Italy, however, ingenious Christians started to find ways round the banking ban. Their contrivances, though legal, were not popular with the church, which held that usurers, by charging for the duration of a loan, were not trading in goods but in time, and this was God’s.
The prospect of an eternity of hellfire was particularly acute in Florence, since it was here that the foundations of modern banking were being laid. As it happened, Florence was also witnessing the first stirrings of an extraordinary flowering of the arts. Before long guilt-ridden bankers were commissioning great works of religious art in the hope that they might after death escape the damnation that the scriptures foretold. In this way were the birth of the international financial industry and that of the Renaissance intimately connected.

 

The connection might perhaps be reduced to a single word, whether patronage, or atonement, or Medici. A
longer, and far more pleasurable, elaboration can be found in text, pictures and objects at the Palazzo Strozzi in Florence, where an exhibition devoted to “Money and Beauty” continues into 2012. Subtitled “Bankers, Botticelli and the Bonfire of the Vanities”, it explores the motives of Florence’s bankers in their artistic commissions; the reactions of churchmen to rich Florentines’ displays of luxury and wealth; and the effects of both penitential patronage and ecclesiastical reproach on the works of art that, throughout the 1400s, or Quattrocento, tumbled forth from Florence like coins from a slot machine.
In the background of the exhibition are the Medici, the wool-traders turned bankers who held sway over the Florentine republic in its golden age under Lorenzo the Magnificent, and who produced popes and queens and Tuscan grand dukes until the last of the dynasty died in 1737. Their grip was interrupted by the invasion of Charles VIII of France in 1494, which brought in its wake the brief rule of Girolamo Savonarola, the austere Dominican friar from Ferrara who berated the Florentines for their luxuries, gambling, carnivals, and particularly their wanton paintings, which made “the Virgin Mary look like a harlot”. He called for children to spy upon their parents, prostitutes to be chastised, sodomites burned alive and irreligious frivolities prohibited. Hence the great Bonfires of the Vanities in the Piazza della Signoria in 1497 and 1498, when countless works of art, as well as cards, books and dresses, went up in flames.
Sandro Botticelli, a central figure, was not one of the artists who flung their paintings onto the fires, but he nevertheless fell under Savonarola’s spell, as his later works clearly show. Gone, in these, were the sensuous depictions of idealised beauty seen in his early paintings, such as the “Birth of Venus”. Now Botticelli’s figures were more likely to bear agonised expressions of intense piety, as in “Madonna and Child with the Young St John”.
In between came works like “The Calumny” (pictured above). This shows Midas on his throne, receiving the counsels of Ignorance and Suspicion, with a hooded Envy clasping the hand of Calumny, who in turn, with Deception and Fraud attending, is dragging the unidentified victim by the hair, while Penitence turns hopefully towards stark-naked Truth. Though not overtly religious, the sentiment is morally correct and therefore Savonarola-suitable, as is the turbulent mood, so far removed from the sumptuous lyricism of Botticelli’s earlier, mythological works. When those were made, as the chronicler Giorgio Vasari noted over half a century later, he worked happily for many Florentine families painting “very nude women”.
“Money and Beauty” was proposed in 2006, just after the birth of the foundation that runs the Palazzo Strozzi, a 15th-century building in the middle of Florence built by mercantile rivals of the Medici. Five years of incubation, however, have only improved the show’s timeliness, allowing reflections not just on the role of bankers in general but even on some familiar banking terms whose origins are Tuscan. The most notable may be “risk”, which derives from Tuscan rischio, the amount considered necessary to cover costs when lending money, ie, a euphemism for interest. Another is “florin”. First coined in Florence, florins circulated widely in Europe for centuries—in Britain until 1971—and may yet perhaps make a post-euro return.
It is not just its timing, though, that makes this show so successful. Its themes, and the abundance of artefacts and paintings on which the curators could draw, allow every point to be illustrated with a wonderful work of art: a panel commissioned by the mint; an altar painting showing Filippo Strozzi, who paid for it, almost as prominently as the entire Holy Family; keys, locks, letters of exchange; an account book pointing to the perils of sovereign default (three banks had gone bust when Edward III of England reneged on large loans); a codex containing the sumptuary laws that forbade flashy clothes and ostentatious funerals. (Even Fra Angelico—see next story—so pious he could not paint a crucifix without tears running down his cheeks, chose to depict the Virgin’s obsequies in the manner of an unashamedly opulent 15th-century Florentine funeral.)
The images are merciless. Miserly bishops are shown being whipped with their own moneybags; St Anthony causes a usurer’s heart to be found in a strongbox; a moneylender meets the figure of Death. Balancing these are numberless images of devotional scenes, the Nativity, the Madonna and other religious figures. And also shown are the events with which Lorenzo’s magnificent era ended: Charles VIII’s entry into Florence, Savonarola preaching against luxuries in a city that derived so much wealth from making them, and the fundamentalist friar’s own execution in the very square in which the Bonfires of the Vanities had been held. This is the visual telling of a tale of beauty and bloodshed, lucre and licentiousness, morality, hypocrisy and propitiation.
The telling is not all the work of the Quattrocento. The exhibits benefit enormously from the commentaries of two curators, Ludovica Sebregondi, a specialist in the religious art of the Renaissance, and Tim Parks, a British novelist and author of “Medici Money” (2005). While one puts the exhibits in their art-historical context, the other explains the social and wider significance. With different styles, and sometimes conflicting views, they add considerably to the pleasure of the show.
And should today’s bankers take heed? Though usury has long since lost its power to inspire any penitential effort among Christians, modern moneylenders are accused of other sins: Pope Benedict calls for “moral renewal” in Italy and the Church of England agonises about the godlessness of the City of London. Yet most bankers seem to dread damnation in the hereafter as little as censure in the here and now. Too bad. Without the fear of God, they are unlikely to pay for a new Renaissance.

 

How to run the euro?

How to run the euro?

• er during the euro crisis: the markets and the politicians. In 2012 the battle will become a lot more complicated, as the politicians splinter into factions. It sounds dangerous—and it is—but thrashing out political arguments is an essential part of bringing the crisis to an end.

Amid the banks’ plunging shares and the soaring yields of government bonds, it is easy to lose sight of the political questions being asked of Europe. Markets have forced Europe’s troubled economies to confront austerity and reform, but politics will determine how they do so. Markets have demanded that Germany and other creditor nations finance a rescue, but politics will decide what they demand in return. Markets want a revamp of the euro’s governance, but politics will ordain how energetically the European Union embraces federalism.

Austerity and a rescue are now under way, though a descent of Greece into anarchy could yet throw them off course. But the third element—renovating the governance of the euro—is still highly uncertain. In 2012 Germany’s Angela Merkel and her fellow euro-zone leaders will set out the sketches for that design.

Try this for a blueprint

If you were sitting down with a blank sheet of paper, you would advise the euro zone to complement its one-size-fits-all monetary policy by pooling sovereignty and creating new institutions. You would set up a European mini-IMF (call it an EMF) with enough funds to tide over troubled countries as they adjusted their economies. A pan-European banking regulator and a bail-out fund could ensure that large European banks were not at the mercy of their vulnerable sovereign borrowers. To stop the markets from picking off weaklings, you might organise centralised borrowing—in which all countries jointly stood behind the debt of each government. And, to stop spendthrift governments from exploiting these mechanisms, euro-zone countries would agree to submit their fiscal policies to the say-so of everyone else.

It amounts to a blueprint for the United States of Europe. And it is utterly beyond reach.

For starters nobody can agree on which central authority should hold all these new powers. France and Germany would refuse to boost the European Commission, which they mistrust. Smaller countries and Germany’s constitutional court would refuse to endow an ad hoc intergovernmental council. Many national leaders heartily detest the European Parliament.

Moreover, many governments are nervous about other euro-zone countries having a say about their own public spending. And the entire EU was scarred by the eight-year-long attempt to restructure the union, first by writing a new constitution—rejected and abandoned—and later by repackaging the constitution into the Lisbon treaty, which limped into force in 2009. You do not find much appetite in Brussels for a repeat performance.

Shape up, for the euro’s sake

Where does that leave the redesign of the euro? Euro-zone governments have agreed that leaders will meet at twice-yearly summits. They have set up a proto-EMF and a European Banking Authority. And they have agreed to monitor the economies of euro-zone members in a souped-up Stability and Growth Pact.

New sanctions might require a new treaty

But more is needed, especially with sanctions. Some could be enforced at the level of the nation. Euro-zone members might have to write caps on deficits and debt into their constitutions, or create independent offices of statistics and budget sustainability, rather as they must have an independent central bank today.

Ultimately, though, new sanctions might require a new treaty. But new treaties take a long time. Countries can weigh them down with their own agendas (Britain, for instance, wants to repatriate powers even though it is not a member of the euro zone). And referendums can reject treaties (just ask the Irish).

These difficulties have answers and the EU has had more than enough practice in fashioning compromises out of unpromising ingredients. But if the euro zone gets it wrong in 2012, it will be laying the foundations of the next currency crisis. 

about 2011 summy og gold and selver interest and opportunites for trading

If you're bullish about the long term for gold and silver, it's mouthwatering to watch them undergo a major correction after taking earlier profits that added to your deployable cash. For a little historical perspective on pullbacks, consider the following charts.


The current 15.6% gold decline, while considered a "major" correction, is not out of the ordinary, particularly following the late summer spike. And after each big selloff, there was a price consolidation phase that in every instance led to higher prices. The message: hold on, and buy the big dips.




Not surprisingly, silver's biggest corrections are larger than gold's. This is also true for the rebounds; they've been quite dramatic. If we apply the biggest three-month recovery of 44.3% to the current correction, that would take silver to $40.63… meaning we probably shouldn't expect $60 silver by year-end.
[There's still time to capitalize on the anomaly in the metals market that will bring amazing profits to those who are positioned for it. This report will help you get started… and offers a special bonus, too. Don't delay – the tide could turn very soon.]
Regarding www.skoptionstrading.com. We have just closed another trade which generated a profit of around 23%, however, we had two trades that were not profitable so the profit on our portfolio now stands at 374.43% since inception.
Please be aware that discussions are taking place regarding an increase in the price for this service for new members, so if you are thinking about joining us, then do it sooner rather later in order to save yourself a fair few bucks by avoiding this additional expense.
Our model portfolio is up 374.43% since inception
An annualized return of 94.38%
Average return per trade of 36.57%
92 completed trades, 85 closed at a profit
A success rate of 92.39%
Average trade open for 48.13 days
 So, the question is: Are you going to make the decision to join us today?
Also many thanks to those of you who have already joined us and for the very kind words  that you sent us regarding the service so far, we hope that we can continue to put a smile on your faces.

 
To stay updated on our market commentary, which gold stocks we are buying and why, please subscribe to The Gold Prices Newsletter, completely FREE of charge.

World GDP: The recovery fades

20-Dec (The Economist) — THE world’s recovery from recession is slowing, according to The Economist’s measure of global GDP, based on 52 countries. Third-quarter growth expanded by 3.6% across the world, down by 1.5% from the same period in 2010.

[source]

“Risk-On, Risk-Off”

It sounds like a play on words, based on the Karate Kid refrain, Wax-On Wax Off, and for all I know it was. Still, I rather like this characterization – coined by a research team at HSBC – of the markets‘ current performance. Moreover, you’ll notice from the placement of that apostrophe that I’m not just talking about forex markets, but about the financial markets in general.

What we mean is that when risk appetite is high, credit markets and equities and high-yielding currencies tend to rally together. When risk appetite fades, “those assets fall and government bonds and safe-haven currencies, including the U.S. dollar, the Swiss franc and, in particular, the Japanese yen rally.” Data from Bloomberg News confirms this phenomenon: “The 120-day negative correlation between Intercontinental Exchange Inc.’s Dollar Index and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was at 42.4 percent today, and has been mostly above 40 percent since June 2009.”
Skeptics counter that this correlation is tautological. Anyone can point to a stock market rally and declare that “Risk is Back On.” In addition, it’s not wholly unsurprising that there are strong correlations between low-risk currencies and low-risk assets, and between high-risk currencies and high-risk assets. According to HSBC, however, this time is different.

For example, models suggest that the recent decline in volatility should have caused these relationships to break down. That they defied predictions and remained strong suggests that we have witnessed a significant paradigm shift. In the past, “Rising correlations are also tied to weak macroeconomic conditions.” At the moment, this could hardly be more true, with global economic growth flagging.
Statisticians love to teach the dictum, Correlation does not imply causation. Nonetheless, I think that in this case, I’d wager to say that the equity and credit/bond markets are driving forex, rather than the other way around. Consider as evidence that, “[Retail] Investors withdrew a staggering $33.12 billion from domestic stock market mutual funds in the first seven months of this year,” and shifted this capital into bonds. While this wouldn’t in itself be enough to drive the Dollar higher, it epitomizes the steady shifts that have been taking place in capital markets for nearly a year, broken only by the S&P/Euro rally in the spring (which now appears to have been an aberration).

In fact, these shifts are once again creating shortages of Dollars: “This week, two banks bid at the European Central Bank’s weekly dollar liquidity providing auction – the first time there have been any bids since May – suggesting that they could not raise dollars in the market.” This suggests that demand for the Dollar could continue to grow.
Some analysts have suggested that the low-yielding US Dollar is already on its way to becoming a funding currency for carry traders, but I think this is wishful thinking. The HSBC report supports this conclusion, “A weakening of the ‘risk on-risk off’ paradigm is likely only once macro conditions are improved in a sustainable way…Currency performance will likely be tied to the ebb and flow of the perception of risk for some months to come.” In short, until there is solid proof that the global economy has emerged from recession (even if ironically it is the US which is leading the pack downward), the Dollar will probably remain strong.

Trading In Emerging/Exotic Currencies Increases

The long wait is over! The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has just released the results from its Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and Derivatives Market Activity, conducted in April 2010. The report contains a veritable treasure trove of data, perhaps enough to keep analysts busy until the next report is released in 2013. [Chart below courtesy of WSJ].

First, the data confirmed earlier reports that average daily forex volume had surged to a record level in 2010: “Global foreign exchange market turnover was 20% higher in April 2010 than in April 2007, with average daily turnover of $4.0 trillion compared to $3.3 trillion. The increase was driven by the 48% growth in turnover of spot transactions, which represent 37% of foreign exchange market turnover. The increase in turnover of other foreign exchange instruments [consisting mainly of swaps and accounting for the majority of forex trading activity] was more modest at 7%.” In addition, for the first time, investors and financial institutions accounted for a larger share of turnover than banks, whose trading activity has remained roughly unchanged since 2004.

The composition of the turnover actually didn’t change from 2007, interrupting a shift which had been taking place over the previous 10 years. Specifically, the share of overall turnover accounted for by the so-called major currencies actually increased in 2010, from 172% to 175%. [Since there are two currencies in every transaction, total volume sums to 200%]. Growth in the G4 currencies (Dollar, Euro, Pound, Yen) was more modest, however, increasing from 154% to 155%. This reversal is probably attributable to the credit crisis, which drove (and in fact, continues to drive) investors out of emerging market currencies and back into safe haven currencies, namely the Dollar, Yen, and Pound. However, this theory is belied by the significant increase in Euro trading activity, which certainly hasn’t benefited from the recent trend towards risk aversion.

While emerging currencies as a group accounted for a smaller share of overall activity, certain individual currencies managed to increase their respective shares. The Singapore Dollar, Korean Won, New Turkish Lira, and Brazilian Real all fit into this category. Still other currencies, such as the Indonesian Rupiah and Malaysian Ringgit, also managed impressive gains but account for such a small share of volume as to be insignificant when looking at the overall the picture. Those who were expecting even bigger growth should remember that it’s ultimately a numbers game: the amount of Ringgit it outstanding is dwarfed by the number of Dollars, so any gains that the Ringgit can eke out are impressive. In addition, when you consider that the overall forex pie is also increasing, the nominal increase in volume for these small currencies was actually quite large.

The ongoing search for yield in all corners of the financial markets is likely to bring some of the more obscure currencies into the fold. “In June, I began getting questions about Uruguay, Vietnam and others,” said Win Thin, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman in New York…investors often asked Mr. Thin questions about less-familiar currencies such as the Ukrainian hryvnia and Romanian leu.” In the same article, however, Mr. Thin cautioned that interest in such currencies is still probably lower than in 2007-2008, for a good reason. “It’s not like the Group of 10, or even the more liquid emerging market currencies where, if you decide you’ve made a mistake, you can get out.”

Due to the lack of liquidity and higher spreads, these obscure currencies aren’t really suitable for trading. Of course there will be a handful of institutional and even retail investors that want to make long-term bets on these currencies. They tend to be more aware of the risk and less sensitive to the higher cost and lower convenience. The overwhelming majority of traders, however, churn their portfolios daily, if not hundreds of times per day. A 10pip spread on the USD/MXN (Dollar/Mexican Peso) would be considered too high, let alone a 50 pip spread on any transaction involving the Ukrainian hryvnia.

In short, the majors will account for the majority of trading volume for the foreseeable future, regardless of what happens to the Euro. At the same time, that won’t prevent a handful of selected emerging currencies, such as the Chinese Yuan, Indian Rupee, Brazilian Real, and Russian Ruble from increasing their share. As liquidity rises and spreads decline, volume will increase, and their rising importance will become self-fulfilling.