25/08/2011: BIS publishes a wish-list for global regulation of OTC derivativatives markets

The Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of IOSCO released a report on over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives data that should be collected, stored and disseminated by trade repositories (TRs). The market for these instruments is current estimated at over $600 trillion. Details and report are available here.

Per BIS statement: "The committees support the view that TRs, by collecting such data centrally, would provide the authorities and the public with better and timely information. This would make markets more transparent, help to prevent market abuse, and promote financial stability."

I happen to agree with the above, subject to one core caveat: collecting data is not enough. It is imperative that data collected is organically integrated into analytical frameworks that actually have a meaningful connection to supervision. This, however, is hardly an easy (and low cost) measure to achieve.

The report implies:

• minimum data reporting requirements and standardised formats
• the methodology and mechanism for data aggregation on a global basis
• these requirements and data formats will apply to both market participants reporting to TRs and to TRs reporting to the public and to regulators
• new information currently not supported by TRs is also identified as being helpful in assessing systemic risk and financial stability, including: current exposure, netting and collateralisation details on bilateral portfolios of OTC transactions; current market values of individual open OTC derivatives transactions; information on collateral assets that are applied to OTC derivatives portfolios, including the valuation and disposition of these assets
  

Back in 2009, the G20 called for OTC derivatives to be centrally cleared and transactions reported to repositories by the end of 2012. In a number of cases, national markets regulators are already setting up such facilities, for example the Trade Information Warehouse for credit default swaps and the Equity Derivatives Reporting Repository, under the US DTCC.

The CPSS and the IOSCO latest call comes as the global authorities are trying to set international minimum standards to apply to derivatives markets from the end of 2012, when a global system of Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI tags) for individual transactions should come in place.

In addition, the authorities also want to develop a standardized international product classification system to provide better sorting of transactions and underlying data, with potential links to higher level risk analytics.

IOSCO previously published a discussion paper on the role of securities regulators with regard to systemic risk which:

• Identifies transparency and disclosure as an important tool for dealing with systemic risk, including product transparency and financial sector stress tests. To meet these requirements, the authorities "would need aggregate data on, inter alia, (i) each entity's current gross exposure and exposure net of collateral (in order to assess both the absolute size of its exposures and its relative importance for the markets under consideration); (ii) each entity's current gross exposures and exposure net of collateral to each of its major counterparties (in order to quantify interconnectedness); and (iii) aggregate exposures of all counterparties in terms of specific asset classes, products, currencies, reference entities and underlying sectors." This data can help evaluate potential "knock-on effects of financial distress at any one institution and identify concentrations of risk among groups of closely related institutions".
• Measuring counterparty exposure will require data regarding bilateral positions, market values of open positions, netting arrangements, collateralisation and disposition and valuation of collateral
• Determining bilateral positions will require "data on the full set of open trades between a pair of counterparties and their economic characteristics, including all terms that are required to calculate and assign a value to a trade such as effective and termination dates, notional amounts, underlier reference data, counterparty information, coupon amounts and schedules, and other salient economic terms specific to individual types of transactions (e.g., restructuring clauses for credit default swap ("CDS") contracts and reference interest rates for interest rate swaps)"
• Determining the effect of netting arrangements will require "data on the set or sets of positions whose gains and losses can be netted against one another in determining amounts owed to any counterparty".

It is, perhaps, revealing to read in the paper candid assessment of the two panels that current reporting infrastructure simply cannot cope with the data required for risk analysis (including higher level systemic risk analysis) in relation to the overall derivatives markets.

"Existing TRs, ...do not track and report market values of open positions with regular frequency. ...existing major TRs are organised along asset-class lines while counterparty risk is managed at the bilateral portfolio level. For example, in computing current exposure, gains in a counterparty's position in one derivative product may be netted against losses in another derivative product. ...TRs as currently implemented would be unable to provide a complete set of information for determining current exposures, and ...some data gaps would still remain. For example, gathering information about collateral and reliable market value for non-cleared OTC derivatives is a challenge. Similarly, it is challenging to create an effective system for capturing information on bilateral netting arrangements."

So on the net - the consultative process launched by today's announcement should be a very interesting one and I will be covering it here. In addition, myself and industry research co-author are working on a paper for the QJ of Central Banking which will touch on some of the issues relating to the above.

25/08/2011: Irish Exports - long term composition

In light of the recent stellar performance of our exports (see my note on the latest figures here), it's worth taking a look at the overall exports and trade balance composition by broadly-defined sectors. Here are some historical facts.

First for some interesting long-term trends:

• Back in 1973, 5 broad sectors: Total food and live animals (0), Beverages and tobacco (1), Crude materials, inedible, except fuels (2), Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials (3) and Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes (4) accounted for 26.8% of our exports by value. By 2002 that number shrunk to 8.6%. The overall importance of these sectors rose to a local peak in 2007 at 12.75% and in 2010 the sectors contributed 12.1% of our exports. Using the data for the first 5 months of 2011, the current running contribution of these sectors to our overall exports stands at 11.2%, despite continued CAP supports and strong agri-food prices.
• Annual contribution of the two sub-sectors related to ICT manufacturing: Office machines and automatic data processing equipment (75) and Electrical machinery, appliances etc., n.e.s. (77) to our exports stood at 13.05%. This share rose to an absolute peak of 34.03% in 2001 and had since fallen to 8.6% in 2010. Based on 5 months data for 2011, current contribution of the two sub-sectors to exports is running at 7.15%.
• Annual contribution of the two sub-sectors related to pharma and medical products and preparation industry: Organic chemicals (51) and Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (54) started with a barely noticeable 4.35% back in 1973, rising to just 7.8% in 1987 before taking off to reach 48.9% in 2010. The two sub-sectors contributed 51.5% of our total value of exports in the first 5 months of 2011.
  

Other sectors evolution is plotted below:
However, it is worth remembering that various exporting sectors are also importers - both of inputs into exports production and goods for consumption and capital investment. So consider the composition of our trade balance by each broad sector contribution:
The chart above hardly needs much commenting. Ireland's trade balance is pretty much now made up of pharmaceuticals and medical products. back in the 1970s, on average, we were net importers of Organic chemicals (51) & Medicinal & pharma products (54) with the two sub-sectors contributing 3.74% deficit to our trade balance. By 2010, the two sub-sectors own trade surplus stood at 86.1% of Ireland's overall trade surplus and in the first 5 months of 2011 the same proportion stood at 97.3%. Let's, say, our potency is Viagra, folks.

Which, of course, brings us to the point of recalling that scary moment which awaits us in 2012, when Viagra starts going off patent... and the overall patent cliff that the industry is facing globally.

In the mean time, our flagship domestic exporting sectors: Total food and live animals (0), Beverages and tobacco (1), Crude materials, inedible, except fuels (2), Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials (3) and Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes (4) continue to contribute negatively to our overall trade balance. These sectors yielded 2.62% negative contribution to trade surplus in 2010 and in the first 5 months of this year they own trade deficits are running at 4.85% of our total trade surplus. By the way, if you think this is a new development, the same was true in the 2000-2009 (-0.23%).

2011 so far is also the first year when we are registering negative contribution to the trade balance from Office machines and automatic data processing equipment (75) and Electrical machinery, appliances etc., n.e.s. (77). Back in the 1970s these flagships of manufacturing were contributing 25.86% of our overall trade balance. In the 1980s 26.5%, in the 1990s 35.6% and in the 2000s +20.5%. In 2010 they accounted for 6.28% of the trade balance, but in the first 5 months of 2011 their contribution turned to negative 2.1%.

Some interesting stats to keep in mind when we talk about successes of our exporting sectors.

25/08/2011: National forecasts and systemic upward biases

New research, published today by NBER shows that national growth and budget forecasts in the Euro area tend to overestimate growth and revenue stability than in other advanced economies and are prone to provide more biased estimates in the period of economic expansion.

The paper, titled Over-optimism in Forecasts by Official Budget Agencies and Its Implications, and authored by Jeffrey A. Frankel of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and published as NBER Working paper 17239 (link here):
"... studies forecasts of real growth rates and budget balances made by official government
agencies among 33 countries.

In general, the forecasts are found: (i) to have a positive average bias, (ii) to be more biased in booms, (iii) to be even more biased at the 3-year horizon than at shorter horizons.

This over-optimism in official forecasts can help explain excessive budget deficits, especially the
failure to run surpluses during periods of high output: if a boom is forecasted to last indefinitely, retrenchment is treated as unnecessary."

In contradiction to the Franco-German recent mantra on fixed and centralized budgetary systems, the author states that: "Many believe that better fiscal policy can be obtained by means
of rules such as ceilings for the deficit or, better yet, the structural deficit. But we also find: (iv) countries subject to a budget rule, in the form of euroland’s Stability and Growth Path, make official forecasts of growth and budget deficits that are even more biased and more correlated with booms than do other countries. This effect may help explain frequent violations of the SGP."

In contrast, own budgetary discipline and honesty in forecasts pays off: "One country, Chile, has managed to overcome governments’ tendency to satisfy fiscal targets by wishful thinking rather than by action. As a result of budget institutions created in 2000, Chile’s official forecasts of growth and the budget have not been overly optimistic, even in booms. Unlike many countries in the North, Chile took advantage of the 2002-07 expansion to run budget surpluses, and so was able to ease in the 2008-09 recession."

25/08/2011: German Index of Business Climate post another sharp contraction in August

Germany's Ifo index of business climate posted another large-scale contraction in August according to the latest reports.

• Index of Business Climate now stands at 108.7 (still in the expansionary territory), down from 112.9 in July. 2Q 2011 average for the index is 114.3 and 3Q 2011 (to-date) average is now at 110.8. Year on year, Business Climate index is down 2.4 points. This is the second consecutive monthly contraction.
  
• Business Situation index also registered a contraction to 118.1 in August from 121.4 in July - a second monthly contraction in a row.
  
• Index of Business Expectations fell precipitously, reaching 100.1 in August, down from 105.0 in July, marking the 6th consecutive month of declines. Index average for 2Q 2011 is 107.1 and 3Q 2011 (to-date) average is 102.6. Business Expectations are now down 8.9 points on August 2010.

All-in the latest reading continues to signal rapid slowdown in business activity, although the levels of the index remain in expansion territory.

24/08/2011: Few thoughts on today's Gold price correction

Following a dramatic rise over the recent weeks, gold registered a correction today. At this moment in time, gold for December 2011 delivery is down 5.76% on the day and is priced at USD 1,754.00 / oz. Here's a snapshot:
Of course, one day movement can be many things:

• A sustained correction (with market settling at lower levels and running along a flat trend)
• A short-term correction (with a return to, perhaps more sustainable, upward trend)
• A bear trap (with relatively prolonged period of downward corrections followed by a return to positive trend) and so on

While it is extremely hazardous to profess any explanations for specific daily (and generally high frequency) changes, here are some of the reasons that are being advanced by various analysts as to the possible drivers of today's correction:

1. The margins theory (see zerohedge comment here): CME raised margins on gold for the second time in the month, having hiked them first 22% and now raising them 27% again (new account margins are now at USD9,450 and maintenance accounts at USD5,500). This second rise follows 26% hike on margins by the Shanghai Gold Exchange (+26%) on Monday to 12%. In theory, margins increases should symmetrically rise costs for short and long positions on gold futures. Which can lead to closing of some positions. In practice, however, two things occur. Firstly, short positions face lower margin exposures than long positions - the difference being small, alas. Secondly, margins increases themselves might be dramatic, but on absolute terms they are still small, unless you are opening highly levered new accounts. The margins theory, in my view, helps explain the physical move in prices, but not the behavioral drivers for investors' reaction. More likely, in my view, is the possibility that two consecutive, short-spread margin hikes signal to the investors that CME is actively trying to prevent gold going parabolic, to contain speculative momentum. If so, current correction is welcome, as it triggers retrenchment of speculative leveraged investors.
2. The talk about Euro area demands for the collateral on Greek (and Portuguese and Irish... and may be Italian and Sapnish...) loans from EFSF/ESM/alphabet soup. FtAlphaville speculates on this (here). There can be indeed a push for such a move, though I doubt it will result in actual sales of gold reserves. Even if the sales were to take place, European peripheral gold will most likely be placed 'discretely' to other central banks and treasuries, plus the IMF in fear of destabilizing official reserves elsewhere. The last thing Europe will want to do is to dent its own (German, French & UK) wealth and anger a bunch of governments in Asia, plus the US & IMF - all of which are deeply into gold holdings.

Incidentally, couple of days ago I commented on twitter that CME margins increases are long-term positive for gold, if they are successful in cooling off speculative leveraged investors.

My guess - and I stress that this is a guess - is that the current correction can turn out to be relatively deep, but it will not alter long term (9-12 months) upward trend for gold. The reason is simple: US, UK, Japan and Europe are poised to print money. In part, this is already factored into previous highs for gold. In part, the uncertainty about the quantities of QE to be deployed, are offering both the upside and the downside scenarios for the gold price relative to peak.

If, however, the global QE does not materialize, stock markets and corporate debt markets will likely to slip into serious bear sentiment. Which will push gold back onto near-parabolic trend up.

As far as today's short-term correction goes, my view is that it was 'helped' by the shifts of liquidity into equities with markets posting another day of strong upsides.

For a longer-term lesson to be learned: today's correction shows clearly the perils (for ordinary investors) of rushing into an asset with a single large-scale purchase. Instead, gold should be treated as a long-term allocation aimed at real wealth preservation and hedging. Such allocation should be built over time, with sustained - volatility-reducing - strategic long positions. Not with attempts to 'time' the market or based on impulsive buy-ins based on expected capital gains.

And, of course, the volatility shown by today's gold price movement, as well as an even more dramatic volatility in equities and fixed income shown over recent months, highlight the need for conservative, long-term investment strategy based on proper risk management and diversification.

23/08/2011: Trade Figures for June - an awesome performance by the sector

Latest trade stats are out for June 2011 for Ireland and the results are, overall, excellent:

• The seasonally adjusted trade surplus increased by 7.54% mom (a whooping 22.45% yoy) to €4,079m. This is the highest monthly surplus ever recorded in nominal seasonally-adjusted terms.
• Compared to June 2009, trade surplus increased 7.48% (+€283.8 million) and compared to June 2010 trade surplus is up 22.45% (+€747.9 million).
• The non-seasonally adjusted trade surplus in June 2011 was €4,473m comprising exports of €8,343m and imports of €3,870m. Per CSO: "This is the highest trade surplus since June 2001.
• Imports came in at a weak €3,821 million in seasonally-adjusted terms in June 2011, down 7.48% on June 2010 and up 2.83% on June 2009.
  
• Exports posted the best seasonally-adjusted performance since February 2011, reaching €7,900 million in June 2011, up 5% (+374.6 million) mom. Exports rose 5.89% yoy (+€439.1 million) and 5.18% (+€388.90 million) on June 2009.

As chart above shows, trade surplus has broken through short-term flat trend that run from roughly speaking January 2009. Which, of course is the good news. Build-up of inputs imports in April 2011 is now exhausted, as indicated by the fact that we have moved to a much more intensive position in exports as determined by imports volumes (chart below). This suggests that trade surplus can shrink in months to come as rebuilding of inputs inventories set in. Regardless, however, June figures are truly spectacular.
For H1 2011:

• Imports stood at €24,934.4 million, up 8.47% (+€1,946.4 million) year on year
  
• Exports were at €46,244.9 million, up 5.43% (+€2,423 million) yoy and
• Trade surplus stood at €21,310.3 million, up 2.29% (+€476.4 million)

The above, of course, provides a backdrop for the claims that our exports-led recovery (which is roaring ahead) is going to underwrite overall economic recovery (which is not happening). Just think, the entire trade surplus increase for 6 months this year would be barely enough to cover 2.6% of our fiscal deficit through June 2011.

Per CSO (using final figures through May) for the first five months of 2011 compared with those for 2010:

• Exports increased by 6% to €38,565m:
• Exports of Medical and pharmaceutical products increased by 14% or €1,362m,
  
• Exports of Organic chemicals rose by 7% or €582m and
  
• Exports of Dairy products increased by 47% or €217m.
• Imports increased by 12% to €21,123m
• Imports of Other transport equipment (including aircraft) increased by 34% or €497m
  
• Medical and pharmaceutical products by 22% or €318m and
  
• Imports of Petroleum rose by 17% or €305m.
  

These figures were achieved against improving terms of trade (lower TT readings) through May (the TT data is lagged 1 month behind the Trade data), as shown in the chart below:
As the result of this, long-term relationship between terms of trade and exports implies that June performance was actually below exports levels consistent with current reading of terms of trade. This suggests that in July and August there is some room for exports increases despite the slight deterioration in the terms of trade month-on-month in June.
On the net, therefore, very positive set of figures on trade from Irish exporters! something truly worth cheering.

23/08/2011: July Banks Survey - Euro area credit supply - Expectations

3 months forward expectations for lending conditions in Euro area, based on July 2011 data from the Banks Lending Survey run by ECB indicate that:

• Overall lending standards by Euro area banks are expected to tighten in 3 months following July 2011 by 9% of survey respondents - a number that has been rising now consecutively for 3 quarters.
  
• Overall lending standards are expected to ease by just 2% of survey respondents, down from 5% reporting back in April 2011.
• The respondents expect virtually no change in lending conditions for SMEs
• Lending to large enterprises is expected to tighten over the next 3 months by 10% of the banks surveyed, while only 3% are expecting lending to ease.

23/08/2011: July Banks Survey - Euro area credit supply - costs & controls

In the previous two posts I looked at the supply of credit to enterprises and the core drivers for changes in banks lending within the Euro area over the 3 months through July 2011. Here is a quick snapshot of what these changes mean on the ground.

The survey question this relates to is: Over the past three months, how have your bank's conditions and terms for approving loans or credit lines to enterprises changed?

• Bank margins on average loans to enterprises have tightened across 19% of the banks in 3 months through July 2011, while 18% of the banks reported easing of the average margins. Thus, overall margins remained largely unchanged across 57% of the banks - same as in 3 months to April 2011. However, in 3 months to April 2011, the percentage of the banks reporting easing of conditions on margins exceeded the percentage of the banks reporting tightening by 3 percentage points. This compares against zero percentage points differential in 3 months through July 2011 (note - these are adjusted percentages, compensating for respondents' errors).
• Number of the banks reporting tightening of margins on riskier loans exceeded numbers reporting easing by 23 percentage points in 3 months to July 2011.
• Non-interest rates charges have tightened in 2 percentage points more banks than eased
• Size of the loans granted tightened in 7% of the banks and eased in 3%, with 84% reporting no change in 3 months through July 2011.
• Collateral requirements have become tighter in 6% of the banks, while the requirements eased in 4%, suggesting de-accelerating rate of collateral requirements barriers growth.
  
• There was tightening of loans covenants reported by 9% of the banks and 6% reported easing. In previous quarter, the comparable numbers were 5% and 4%, implying tighter covenants are getting tougher.

While margins and non-interest rate charges are running at virtually no change since early 2010, there is a slight uptick in pressures in these credit costs. Collateral requirements remain on moderating tighter path, while riskier loans are posting second consecutive quarter of tightening of the margins.

Overall, these responses paint a mixed picture of costs of the bank lending to enterprises and suggests that market funding and capital and liquidity concerns drive banks lending dynamics in the Euro area, rather than costs and conditions structures.

22/08/2011: July Banks Survey - Euro area credit supply - drivers

In the previous post I highlighted some new developments in Euro area banks lending to the SMEs and larger enterprises (post link here). In this post, let us consider the data (through July) from the ECB's Banks Lending Survey for the core drivers of the structural stagnation and renewed weaknesses that have emerged in the Euro area credit supply.

The survey question we are considering here is: "Over the past 3 months, how have the following factors affected your bank's credit standards as applied to the approval of loans on credit lines to enterprises?"

• When it comes to the cost related to the bank's capital position, the percentage of banks reporting tighter (higher) costs was 6%, while the percentage of banks reporting easing of capital cost conditions was zero.
• There were zero banks reporting easing in capital costs conditions in April 2011 and January 2011.
• 2010 average for the percentage of banks reporting tighter cost conditions in excess of those reporting easing of conditions at the end of July (6%) was identical to the 2010 annual average.
• As shown in the chart below, bank's ability to access market funding remains on downward trend for second quarter in a row. At the end of July, the percentage of banks reporting tightening of access to market financing was 9%, same as for the three months through April 2011 and up on 4% in H2 2010.
• At the same time, percentage of banks reporting easing of access to market funding dropped from 2% in 3 months to October 2010, to 1% through January 2011, to 0% in 6 months since January 2011.

And a summary plot of banks access to funding markets, showing new tightening trend:

When it comes to the banks' liquidity positions, the story is also that of continued and deepening deterioration:

• 10% of banks in the survey stated that their liquidity conditions tightened in 3 months through July 2011, up from 8% in 3mo through April 2011 and 6% in 6 months before that.
• Only 1% of banks stated that their liquidity positions have eased (improved) in 3 mos through April 2011, the same percentage as in 3 mos through April 2011 and down from 3% in 3 months through January 2011.
  

Meanwhile, banks competition is now running along a flat trend:

• In 3 months through July 2011, 82% of the banks in the Euro area reported no change in competitive pressures from other banks, up from 79% in 3 months to April 2011, while 1% reported tightening and 8% reported easing of competition.
• The same story, but less dramatic, holds for competition from non-banks and for competition from market (non-banks) financing.
• The percentage of banks that observed tighter expectations of general economic activity in the end of July 2011 was 15%, as contrasted by just 4% that reported easing expectations.

So in summary, despite (or perhaps because of) the regulatory and recapitalization measures deployed, in 3 months to July 2011, Euro area banks continued to shrink supply of credit to Euro area enterprises because their funding conditions, liquidity positions, capital costs and expectations for economic activity were getting tighter. In the meantime, competition in European banking sector, having eased significantly from the peak crisis period, is running at generally depressed levels and along relatively flat trend.

Surely these are not the signs consistent with stable improvement or the end of the crisis?

22/08/2011: July Banks Survey - Euro area credit supply to enterprises

There are rumors circling euro area banks about the impeding liquidity crunch and rising risk profiles. In this light, it is illustrative to take a look at the latest Banks Lending Survey data from ECB to see if there are new trends emerging in terms of credit supply.

This post will look at some data from the Surveys covering lending to enterprises, while the follow up posts will deal with the core drivers of changes and with banks' lending to the households.

First, consider the aggregates (all data through July 2011) - with Chart below illustrating:

• Overall in terms of lending to the euro area enterprises, 8% of banking survey respondents indicated that lending conditions have tightened or considerably tightened over 3 months through July 2011, while 5% indicated that their lending conditions eased or eased considerably.
  
• The percentage of respondents who indicated tightening of conditions remained unchanged in July compared to June, but is up from 5% reported in May. Year on year, percentage of respondents reporting tighter lending conditions dropped by 4 percentage points, while percentage of those reporting easing of conditions rose 4 percentage points.
  
• 87% of respondents indicated that their lending conditions were unchanged in 3 months through July 2011, down from 89%.
• Over 3 months through July 2011, percentage of the banks reporting tighter lending conditions (8%) was below 9.25% 2010 average and significantly below 35% and 49.5% averages for 2009 and 2008.
• The percentage of banks reporting easing of lending conditions in 3 months through July 2011 (5%) was above 2010 average of 3.75% and above 2008 and 2009 averages of 0.75% each.

For SMEs (Chart below illustrates):

• Percentage of the banks reporting easing of considerable easing of lending conditions in 3 months through July 2011 was 3%, which is 3 percentage points above same period last year, but is unchanged from June and down from 4% in both April and May.
• Percentage of the banks reporting tighter or considerably tighter lending conditions was 7% in 3 months through July 2011, up on 6% in May and June, but down from 15% in April. The percentage of banks reporting tighter lending to SMEs in 3 months through July 2011 was 7 percentage points lower than a years ago and at 7% compares favorably against 11.75% average for 2010 and 35.5% and 39% averages for 2009 and 2008 respectively.

For larger corporate loans (Chart below):

• 9% of the banks reported tightening of lending conditions to large enterprises in 3 months through July 2011, which is 6 percentage points below the level of responses recorded in July 2010. However, the current percentage remains relatively close to 2010 average of 10.5%, although it is substantially down from 37.75% and 52.5% averages for 2009 and 2008.
• Month-on-month, tighter conditions in July 2011 (9%) were less prevalent than in June (11%), but more prevalent than in May (7%).
• Easing or considerable easing of lending to large enterprises was reported by 7% of the banks, up from 5% a month ago and 4 percentage points above the same level in July 2010.
• Easing of conditions in 3 months through July 2011 (7%) is now ahead of the same figure for 2010 average (4.25%) and well ahead of both 2008 and 2009 averages of 0.5% and 0.75%.
  

On the net, data shows some stabilizing momentum in credit supply, but this momentum is extremely anemic. Overall, more lenders continue to tighten lending conditions for large enterprises and SMEs.

20/08/2011: Yielding to Fear or Managing Wealth

Here's a copy of my presentation from August 18th in the Science Gallery covering some of my views on gold (announcement here). All disclosures were made in the announcement and at the beginning of my presentation - do not accept this as either an advice to take any investment action - as usual. You can click on individual slides to enlarge.

18/08/2011: VIX signals crunch time for the crisis

Summary:


Few charts on VIX - hitting historic, second highest ever, 1-day dynamic semi-variance range:
VIX itself above and intraday range below:

3mo dynamic STDEV showing emerging and reinforced trend up on semi-variance side:
And same for straight volatility (symmetric)
This, folks is a crunch time.

The reasons I bothered with this are here.