against all odds

Consumer Loans blau

Man sieht: Im Vorhof zur Hölle sinkt der Stresspegel unter 0

Indikator:


The STLFSI measures the degree of financial stress in the markets and is constructed from 18 weekly data series: seven interest rate series, six yield spreads and five other indicators. Each of these variables captures some aspect of financial stress. Accordingly, as the level of financial stress in the economy changes, the data series are likely to move together. The latest STLFSI press release, with commentary, can be found at http://www.stlouisfed.org/newsroom/financial-stress-index/

How to Interpret the Index

The average value of the index, which begins in late 1993, is designed to be zero. Thus, zero is viewed as representing normal financial market conditions. Values below zero suggest below-average financial market stress, while values above zero suggest above-average financial market stress.

informativ. Dennoch könnte man die These vertreten, dass die Earnings der Firmen bröckeln, bevor der Credit Cycle sein klassisches Ende findet. Stress im Finanzsystem könnte auch wieder durch ein Aufflammen der Eurokrise entstehen, wenn tatsächlich Schuldenschnitte anstünden.

Dadurch wäre auch der von Dir erwartete flache Bärenmarkt wahrscheinlicher. Ansonsten bekämen wir wieder einen scharfen Absturz.

nur weil die Earnings bröckeln, findet der Credit Cycle sein Ende. Kredit wird draussen nicht wie der Stammtisch glaubt durch Sicherheiten, sondern durch zukünftigen Ertrag 'gedeckt'. Es  gilt: Je grösser das Kreditvolumen, desto anspruchsvoller die Erwartung an zukünftigen Ertrag. Weil grösseres Kreditvolumen den Kredit verteuert, sinkt aber gleichzeitig der Kredithebel. Das Krisenmomentum entsteht, wenn die Erwartung, Kredit sei durch stetig steigende Earnings gedeckt, durch ernüchternd ausfallende Zahlen an Überzeugungskraft verliert...

Die Defaultrate gibt einen Hinweis. Wie man sieht, drehte diese im Vorfeld der letzten Kreditkrisen / Bärenmärkte nach oben:

Info: Einbruch beim real income im Zusammenhang mit dem sequester Jan 013

Die EMA 50 zeigte schon die üblichen Ermüdungserscheinungen und wird aktuell wieder an den oberen Anschlag getrieben. Diese Spikes bedeuten innerhalb oder kurz nach einer ordentlichen Korrektur meist starkes Kaufinteresse mit Anschlusskäufen.

Am Top signalisieren diese Spikes normalerweise Euphorie. Dass die 9000 wie ein Magnet auf viele Börsenteilnehmer gewirkt hat könnte ich verstehen. Aber wie geht es weiter? Rennen die Bullen weiter, weil die Arbeitsmarktzahlen so schwach waren und der Bernake Put weiter zieht?

das im fortgeschrittenen Bullmarkt die reported profits bereits einknicken, während der Forecast getragen vom bullishen Sentiment noch eine Weile optimistisch bleibt...

Fiscal consolidations and spillovers in the Euro
area periphery and core

This paper uses a structural multi-country model to assess the impact of fiscal consolidation
measures undertaken in 2011-13 in the EA periphery and core. The simulations assume 'crisis'
conditions prevailing (high share of constrained households, ZLB). The GDP effects depend
crucially on the composition of the consolidation and on how quickly expectations are affected.
Expenditure-based consolidations have larger impact multipliers than revenue-based
consolidations.

Average multipliers for domestic fiscal shocks range from 0.5 and 1, depending
on the degree of openness. But spillovers of fiscal consolidations are large, with both the
demand channel and the competitiveness channel adding to the negative GDP effects. Higher
risk premia add further to the negative GDP effects. Spillovers from consolidations in Germany
and core EA have worsened the overall economic situation. A temporary fiscal stimulus in
surplus countries can boost output and help reduce their current account surpluses. The
improvement in current account deficits in the periphery is however small.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/...pdf/ecp506_en.pdf

- und zwar in der entscheidenden Komponente. Ich bin gespannt auf das Makrosentiment in einer Woche (michigan)

Die EU über ihre kontraktive Finanzpolitik:

'...The
process of public deleveraging coincided with private sector deleveraging and has further
intensified the crisis....'
 

'In general the following types of spillovers can be considered:

1. Demand spillovers that result from policy action in one country (growth-reducing
fiscal consolidations) influencing import and export flows with partner economies. As
consolidation measures reduce growth and domestic demand, measures undertaken in
one country have a negative demand spillover effect on other countries.

2. Competitiveness effects, resulting from e.g. deflationary policy shocks putting
downward pressure on prices and wages and improving its competiveness, but which
represent a negative spillover for competing countries, possibly reinforcing the negative
demand spillover.

3. International financial flows caused by reforms in one country having effects on
other countries. For example, reforms which reduce the rate of return on capital can lead
to capital outflows until rates of return are equalised internationally. Movements of the
exchange rate associated with international capital flows can induce further trade flows....'
 

Robert Murphy http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article28035.html

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a hip economic/financial paradigm apparently sweeping a world unsatisfied with mainstream economics. Over the past year, I have been hearing a growing number of people refer to MMT: either fans who think it blows up my Austrian views, or foes who think it deserves a full-scale critique.

MMT's underground popularity derives from its seeming mathematical rigor, its disagreement with the obviously flawed doctrines of standard neo-Keynesian orthodoxy, and its underlying message of hope that the perceived constraints on government deficit spending are an illusion. The MMT proponents tell us that fiat monetary systems have removed the shackles associated with the gold standard, and that our economic recovery is limited only by our failure to understand how modern money and banking work.

To illustrate my problems with MMT, let's focus on a specific issue: the debate over the government budget deficit. With Austrians and other libertarian types calling for immediate cuts in spending, while Keynesians call for future spending restraint and tax hikes to slow the increase in debt down the road, the MMTers come along and say both sides are ignorant.

According to many proponents of MMT, "deficits don't matter" when a sovereign government can issue its own fiat currency, and all the hand wringing over the government's solvency is absurd. In fact, the MMTers claim that given the reality of a US trade deficit, a sharp drop in the government's budget deficit would hamper the private sector's ability to save. Thus, the Austrians are unwittingly calling for a collapse in private saving when they foolishly demand government austerity.

The national accounts concept underpins the basic income-expenditure model that is at the heart of introductory macroeconomics. We can view this model in two ways: (a) from the perspective of the sources of spending; and (b) from the perspective of the uses of the income produced. Bringing these two perspectives (of the same thing) together generates the sectoral balances.

So from the sources perspective we write:

GDP = C + I + G + (X — M)

which says that total national income (GDP) is the sum of total final consumption spending (C), total private investment (I), total government spending (G) and net exports (X — M) [i.e., exports minus imports].

From the uses perspective, national income (GDP) can be used for:

GDP = C + S + T

which says that GDP (income) ultimately comes back to households who consume (C), save (S) or pay taxes (T) with it once all the distributions are made.

So if we equate these two perspectives of GDP, we get:

C + S + T = C + I + G + (X — M)

This can be simplified by cancelling out the C from both sides and re-arranging (shifting things around but still satisfying the rules of algebra) into what we call the sectoral balances view of the national accounts.

(I — S) + (G — T) + (X — M) = 0

That is the three balances have to sum to zero. The sectoral balances derived are:

The private domestic balance (I — S) …

The Budget Deficit (G — T) …

The Current Account balance (X — M) …

A simplification is to add (I — S) + (X — M) and call it the non-government sector. Then you get the basic result that the government balance equals exactly $-for-$ … the non-government balance (the sum of the private domestic and external balances). This is also a basic rule derived from the national accounts and has to apply at all times.

For the purposes of our discussion, let's simplify things by taking out the international-trade aspect. (We can justify this by looking at the world as a whole, which obviously can't run a trade deficit or trade surplus,[1] and then analyzing the effects of changes in the total budget deficits of all the various governments.)

So if we take out exports and imports, and rearrange the remaining terms, we derive this equation:
G − T = S − I

That is, the amount of government spending minus total tax revenue, is necessarily equal to private saving minus private investment. The MMTers might succinctly express this relationship in words:

Government Budget Deficit = Net Private Saving.

marx - wertform

keynes - antizyklik

hayek, mises - eine richtige produktionsweise

derrida - dekonstruktion

postkeynesian - credit cycle, basic uncertainty

modern money theory - the sum must add to zero

taleb - das fragile ist eine konstante

shiller - it's the animal spirit, stupid