Rethinking the short sentiment on USD...

Leveraging refers to the simple act of borrowing X USD on the basis of the collateral of Y USD, such that X >> Y. So, X/Y = m refers to the leverage ratio at play. This ratio is assumed to be "stable" over the life time of a trade. However, as the net value of Y as measured in the market reduces, the leverage factor m increases. It is clear over the past year or so, banks have been actively involved in an effort to deleverage. The consequences are unclear in the long run - however, there seems to be emerging consensus that the aftereffects of this are likely to be significant. The effects of this reduction in leverage in the FX market is particularly interesting and complex. The order of complexity is furthered by the squeeze in the credit market. While the sentiment on the US economy is remarkably short -- the question regarding the USD is more complex.

One, particular confluence of credit and FX markets is the freeze up in the lending markets. In a fine essay by Thomas Stolper and others - they hint at the mechanics and the consequences of this relationship. Most banks have short dated FX obligations and longer dated domestic currency obligations. As the overseas short term lending markets freeze -- we get banks scrambling to find assets to pay out their obligations. Since most central bank lending mechanisms only lend in their domestic currencies -- most banks are forced to borrow domestically, convert that into the foreign currency and payout. The dollar denominated debts are the highest in the world, followed by Euro denominated and so on. So, as the US lending market freezes - one should the rising demand in the USD (as counterintuitive as it might seem).

However, this is one piece of the puzzle. The trader is only concerned with the net flow of dollars and changes in value - however, it is important to keep in mind the market imperfection (frozen credit markets) work its way through structural constrains.

Predicting the Fed

The problem with best estimates is two fold.
One, the 'best-ness' criterion is contingent on the information available. So, new information can cause a previous “best” estimate to be a second best or worst estimate. (An extreme example would be, in a non-financial context, American foreign policy on September 10’2001. The next day’s events – led to wildly different prescriptions than most academics/policy wonks had anticipated.) So, the quanta, quality and timing of information is the key.

Second, the estimate itself is a result of some estimating method – an algorithm, a formulae – that econometricians call “estimators”. In essence, it is not just information that is relevant – but the method in which you process the information. It is entirely feasible, and relatively easy to show, that even with the most recent information using a wrong estimator can result in (a) biased estimates (b) unbiased but highly inefficient (c) biased and highly inefficient estimates. By inefficient, one means estimators that contain within itself the possibility of generating widely variant results as the underlying sample increases in size.

As you can imagine, getting oneself tied up in some subtleties is something that many participants on Wall Street have little time for, or worse, just find it plain useless. One of the biggest games is undoubtedly, inspired no doubt by Whack-a-Mole journalism in American media, is watching the Fed’s decisions on rate cuts. (Things are sometimes so absurd that, as Alan Greenspan writes, there are guys dedicated to watching the size of Greenspan’s briefcase!)

One of the well observed predicting markets is the Fed Fund Futures (FFF) market. The FFF is a futures contract written on the “average of the daily effective FF rate”. The FF rate is the rate that the Federal Bank of New York charges to federal fund brokers. The “effective” part in the earlier definition arrives from the fact, for any given day, different brokers who deal with differing transactional sizes, might be charged differently. So, the “effective” is the same as ‘weighted average’. A heuristic reason is that the Fed Funds market participants are likely to take into account all the factors that might affect the path of the interest rates that the fed sets. The rates implied by this market can be thought of as a first-order prediction. There are various issues – as of yesterday, the one month rates are given as below.

7-Oct 95.255
7-Nov 95.495
7-Dec 96.61
8-Jan 95.665
8-Feb 95.785
8-Mar 95.82
8-Apr 95.895
8-May 95.925
8-Jun 95.92

The implied 1-Month rates are given above.

The critical aspect is that the generic expectation is that the Fed will continue to accommodate and allow for a 4% rate over the next six months. i.e., 3/4 of a decrease in rates. Implicit in this expectation is

• Inflation, core or otherwise, will not be a problem. This, despite the clear trends to a 100$ barrel.
  
• The housing conditions will worsen -- i.e., when over 800billion USD worth mortgages are to be reset over the next two months -- expect a lot more defaults.
  
• The weakening dollar is not really something the Fed worries about. (How to reconcile rising import costs with its inflation hawkishness is a tricky question!)

I think, this will be a very difficult time for Bernanke and Co., primarily because with rising inflation (via oil, via imports, via China, via protectionist lobbies) and worsening labor markets -- the short end of the curve will have substantive volatility.

Again, my thoughts are that the demand for non-USD denominated assets will continue.

Sovereign Wealth Funds -- Behemoths at the DoorStep

With rising US current accounts deficits – resulting in increased demand for foreign denominated assets and foreign currencies, the pressures on the CNY, INR, BRL etc., is well known. Predictably, the sterilization (complete or incomplete) has led to CB intervening in the FX markets – selling their own currencies and buying foreign currencies (typically USD denominated assets). To put this accumulation in perspective, some numbers (in millions) are:

China: 1,334,590

Japan 907,346

Russia 407,495

Taiwan 266,287

Korea 250,667

India 220,223

Central banks (in the emerging markets) control over 5.6 TRILLION dollars of US denominated assets. There are estimates that more than 50% of the US current account deficit was financed by these Emerging Market Treasuries. This financing is slowly declining – because one of the, only (?), benefits of the present credit crises is that the US domestic savings are expected to improve, primarily because they are so far in the hole – there seems to be only one way to go! This financing is also slowly declining because the Central Banks have two primary options – opt for other “major” currencies (Euro, Yen) or opt for more risky ventures (like China investing in BlackStone, Norway’s Global Pension Fund, Dubai in global Ports etc.,) “Sovereign Wealth Funds” are explicitly mandated subsection of foreign Treasury holdings that act on behalf of the domestic Treasuries – and are more likely to invest in non-standard asset classes. i.e., they are likely to be the primary agents that drive the risk premium lower in the coming years across the globe. The size of the numbers being projected is beyond my comprehension (in any meaningful sense). Where are these risky returns like to come from? Potentially innovative financing deals and projects like those done by Macquarie!

In the FX markets, this diversification towards other asset classes and non-USD ‘majors’ is inevitably linked to a decline in the USD value. (one number thrown around is that around 1,200 billion USD is likely to move out of the dollar denominated assets!) I would very seriously look into buying global blue chips – since while still being “risky”, these will fit within the SWFs criterion of being “risky enough”. I would look seriously at global real estate – buy property in semi-industrialized nations.

The secret, I suspect, is to ride the coat-tails of the global central bank investment philosophy changes. The unspoken, unheard of elephant-in-the-room is the United States government. Excessive decline of the dollar, with no perceptible change in consumption/savings in the US, might result in, to use a Lou Dobbs phrase, “selling America to foreigners”.

In essence, I would not be surprised if 5 years from now, a Pulitzer prize winning non-fiction entry is solely geared to explaining the complexities and conspiracies that went behind the spectacular but ultimately unsuccessful management of the Dollar slide.

Revaluation of the Yuan...

Given the generic consensus at the G7, US Congress, Rest of the World barring for Sudan and Myanmar that the Yuan is under-valued against all global majors, particularly the USD – it is a question of when, rather than if at all, the Yuan will be revalued. Given the smooth change of guard at the Communist party meeting – it seems fairly certain that the Yuan will be revalued, perhaps not as much as the Treasury officials deem necessary, but in the “right” direction. What does this do to global trade flows?

Some preliminary conclusions/thoughts/conjectures are:

1. The econometric evidence on the contributions exchange rates make on competitiveness, productivity investments and thus, trade surplus in China is too varied to really be of much use in a week-on-week assessment.

2. One estimate is that the Yuan is undervalued anywhere from 0-50%! Assuming it is 50%, and all other costs remain constant, a 50% revaluation (entirely unlike) will affect varying sectors of the economy differently. So, prices observed in the imports will change according to the demand elasticity for given price change. So, in the countries that import low-complexity Chinese commodities -- pencils, mousepads etc., -- there will be a substitution effect in display.

3. Standard trade theory predicts that as Yuan is revalued, the level and growth rate of the Chinese exports should decline. However, it is important to note that most international trade contracts are 6-12 months set in advance. So a container of toothpaste to be delivered at Seattle port set at 1USD, will make the Chinese exporter temporarily better off. In contrast, US exporters of products invoiced in Yuan, will be worse off given the new USD-Yuan rate. The trade deficit numbers will do exactly the opposite as Washington expects in the two-three month period. (The opposite of a J-Curve observed during a devaluation.)

4. What a Yuan revaluation does to non-USD currency majors – is very much contingent on the competition for products in domestic markets and in third-party markets.

5. The supply change management in place for goods to and from China is a well-oiled machine, and changing trade flows will take longer than perhaps one anticipates. There are economies of scale in place and productivity gaining measures in place – that the willingness to abandon China as a primary sourcing place is unlikely to change all that much. Of course, the trade deficit numbers will seem more palatable for political purposes, but whether a substantive quanta of imports declines is unlikely.

6. All of the above assumes the Chinese will continue to produce as always. Then the improvements in the Yuan will provide the results Washington wants. But, all that is unrealistic. If the pricing pressures increase on Chinese products, then it is silly to not expect them to improve their productivity.

7. The most understudied aspect is that when the Chinese exports decline (and thus their income declines) – the effect on goods imported to China. It is easily conceivable that services from India and Europe can replace services and goods offered by the US. The elasticity of Chinese imports to income changes is perhaps the most important, and unclear, aspect of this whole issue.

Now what? When revaluation happens, for a short while the USD will rise, Euro will fall against the USD and the Yen will rise as well (if the USDJPY tracking of 6M USDCNY forwards are to be trusted!).

But, in the intermediate term after the revaluation we will be back here -- singing the same tune.