1/1/16: Another VEB update: things are getting crunchier...

And another update to the long-running saga of VEB - Vnesheconombank - that I covered over a week ago here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/231215-vnesheconombank-where-things.html.

Latest rumour mill is that VEB will need "AUD24.67 billion" - which is within the range we've heard for some time already.

About the only new bits we get from Moscow are:

• That "the Finance Ministry has submitted proposals to aid VEB in 2016 to the government for approval, with some measures ready to be carried out in the first quarter, Svetlana Nikitina, an aide to the finance minister, said in Moscow on Tuesday," as quoted here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/vladimir-putins-bank-needs-a-2467-billion-bailout-20151229-glwkd4.html or if you want USD figures: http://www.ibtimes.com/kremlin-rushes-bail-out-russias-state-run-bank-2242266. The article, overall, is a good summary of the bank history, complementing my own post. 
• Both Russian Treasury and the Central Bank of Russia have cut the rates paid by VEB on their deposits to 0.25% (see report here: http://www.reuters.com/article/russia-veb-rates-idUSL8N14J07U20151230). On top of that, national wealth fund deposits with VEB will be extended to a maturity of up to 5 years. All of which should decrease significantly immediate liquidity pressures on VEB.

The key point of the VEB saga, however, is still not adding up. As covered in my post, VEB is facing some USD19.3 billion in debt maturing through 2025 with less than USD8 billion due through 2018. So why USD18 billion in capital hole, then?

Moodys note from earlier this week explained (emphasis mine):

"VEB Group's problem loans/gross loans ratio (including impaired but not overdue loans) increased to 39.3% as of end-2014 compared with 19.7% as of end-2013. Moody's estimates that the bank has already recognized a substantial portion of these problem loans and therefore further growth of problem loans should be contained. However, VEB remains highly exposed to single-name concentration risk and risks associated with its subsidiaries, particularly the Russian banks bailed out in 2008-09 and Prominvestbank in Ukraine.

Moody's notes that VEB's profitability metrics have substantially deteriorated, as reflected in its return on average assets (RoAA) ratio of -3.7% in the first half of 2015, following RoAA of -7.2% posted in 2014. ...At the same time, its net interest margin declined to 1.9% in H1 2015 relative to 2.7% in 2014, which reflected growing funding costs and an increasing problem loans.

Moody's anticipates some improvements in VEB's core profitability metrics following a normalization of Russian financial market conditions and gradual stabilization of problem loan levels. Nevertheless, VEB will not achieve breakeven over next 12-18 months due to still high provisioning charges and weak core profitability metrics.

VEB's standalone credit worthiness is also supported by its capital levels, which have historically been maintained by the government. VEB's statutory capital ratio (N1.0) was 12.4% as of H1 2015, which was higher than the regulatory minimum of 10%, which VEB has to respect due to its Eurobond covenant. Moody's notes that the government's regular capital injections have totalled around RUB559 billion in Tier 1 capital and $6 billion in Tier 2 capital since 2007. However, future capital increases may come in a less tangible form, e.g. via the provision of cheaper funding resulting in a fair value gain under IFRS, rather than through paid-up capital."

There are some EUR 9 billion worth of eurobonds issued by the VEB still outstanding.

In other words, we have a 'development bank' (not a retail bank) that is bound by 10% capital ratio, that, absent that ratio would require much less capital than USD18 billion. It will be interesting to see how Moscow can restructure capital in VEB to avoid an absolutely massive capital blackhole, but I suspect there will be some financial acrobatics involved.

1/1/16: Developers Questioning Banking Inquiry Report

While we do not know what is in the Banking Inquiry report signed-off this week, concerns being expressed by the two developers, namely Michael O’Flynn and Johnny Ronan, that the report is likely to be a whitewash of Nama is a legitimate one.

The inquiry basically and obviously failed to provide platform for the voices critical (or robustly critical) of Nama, opting instead to put forward testimonies of some developers who have potential coincident / congruent interest in seeing Nama escaping serious criticism.

Thus, legitimate suspicion can be (though we should wait to confirm or decline it) that the Banking Inquiry report will indeed skip over Nama's core role in creating a dysfunctional (and currently strongly legally challenged) crisis resolution environment in Ireland. And another legitimate suspicion (based on past record of coverage of the Inquiry in the media) is that most of Irish media will be unlikely to robustly challenge the report on any conclusions regarding Nama.

That said, let's wait and see the report...

1/1/16: Historical Default Cycles: Are We Testing the 'Norm'?

Having written before about the growing signs we are upon a new default cycle (see, for example, post here http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/301215-us-junk-bonds-heading-into-new.html), it is only fitting that I should highlight the latest article from Carmen Reinhart in which she talks about default 'waves' or cycles: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sovereign-default-wave-emerging-markets-by-carmen-reinhart-2015-12#d0X1sQB3KuUHlp7A.99.

Key chart:

Reinhart says that "From a historical perspective, the emerging economies seem to be headed toward a major crisis. Of course, they may prove more resilient than their predecessors. But we shouldn’t count on it."

I can add, either that, or count on a new wave of 'competitive devaluations' or 'currency wars' and forget about any 'normalization' in the interest rates.

31/12/15: 2016 Bonds Market Outlook

My take on 2016 outlook for bond markets for Manning Financial is available here: http://issuu.com/publicationire/docs/mf_newsletter_22122015_web?e=16572344/32155392 (see page 5)

Or you can click on the following images to enlarge

31/12/15: Euro's share of international reserves falls... again...

The dream of the Euro becoming world reserve currency has had a bit of a rough year in 2015. The world's most prominent bureaucurrency just kept on losing ground as the share of international forex reserves goes:

Down from 28% in 2009 to 20.3% in 2015, marking its seventh consecutive quarterly fall.

30/12/15: 2016 Better Be Kinder to the Old Ruble... or...

The never-before mighty Ruble started the last day of 2015 trading on a shaky ground:

And it ended the year on a shaky ground:

And for all the pain, there is little gain. As oil tanks, Ruble will keep sinking. Per recent report from Bloomberg (emphasis mine):

"The currency would need to tumble more than 20 percent to at least 90 against the dollar to tip the
country into a full-blown crisis, according to 17 of 20 respondents in a Bloomberg survey. Should such a threat emerge, the Bank of Russia has an array of tools at its disposal, including verbal and market interventions, an emergency interest rate increase and capital controls, they said. “It would take more than 90 rubles per dollar to provoke significant repercussions,” said Sergey Narkevich, an analyst at Promsvyazbank PJSC in Moscow. “In 2015, Russian monetary authorities managed to mostly avoid spillovers from the foreign currency market and keep the financial system afloat and broadly functional.”

Except, here's a problem, per BAML:

Source: Bloomberg

Now, connect the dots... At above 90, we will have 'significant repercussions' and oil is already at around 37. What is more, all of the above references Brent prices. But Urals-Brent spread has been pretty awfully 'unfair' to Russian energy suppliers, and with the glut of eager and ready substitutes producers in the markets, the spread is unlikely to improve. Which means that 'above 90' can be 91 or it can be 95 or it can be 88... go figure.

Then again, may be, by some miracle, the New Year will be a happy one for the Ruble.

Update: Russia is hardly unique in linking currency valuations to budgetary / exchequer balances, as argued in this post - all commodities-dependent economies do that. And there is, of course, that added dimension of recessionary pressures, as shown in the chart below (taken from Bloomberg article covering Chinese growth woes):

30/12/15: Baltic Dry Index: Brick in Search of a Lake's Bottom

While IMF (belatedly) is warning about the risks of slower global growth, the Baltic Dry Index - a strong instrumental variable for global trade flows - has been sinking and sinking, like a brick searching for the bottom.

Yes, IMF did project back in October WEO that global growth will reach 3.56% in 2016, up on 3.123% in 2015. And that the growth in volume of trade flows will rise form just under 3% to 4.3%, with much of this growth accounted for by increased rate of growth in trade in goods (from 2.9% in 2015 to 4.13% in 2016). But, hey... one day someone will be booking real stuff on foot of IMF forecasts. Until then, good news-bad news from Washington forecasters mean zilch for the Baltic Dry.

30/12/15: US Junk Bonds: Heading into a New Defaults Wave?..

U.S. Junk Bonds markets have been a canary in the proverbial mine of the global economy since 2014, when we first felt some tremors in the markets. But so far, default rates for the junk bonds remained relatively subdued, albeit rising.

 
However, as recent Fitch forecasts suggest, things are about to get 1999-2000 styled. Fitch latest projection (mid-December) for U.S. Junk Bonds default rate for 2016 is at 4.5%, with energy sector at 11%. Now, for sectoral comparatives, here are the historical average default rates for the periods outside official recessions:

 The average in the historical series ex-recessions is close to 2.2%, which would make 2016 forecast for 4.5%... err... touchy, to say the least. It is also worth noting that in three pre-Global Financial Crisis recessions, build up in default rates was gradual, over two-four years. We are now two years into such a build up.

Obviously, this does not look like a good time to go into heavily leveraged assets... unless you've never been through a credit cycle meat grinder before...

30/12/15: Blink by 25bps, chew through billions: U.S. rates 'normalization'

In a post yesterday, I mentioned USD3 trillion hole in global bonds markets looming on the horizon as the U.S. Fed embarks on its cautious tightening cycle. Now, couple more victims of that fabled 'normalization' that few in the markets expected.

First up, U.S. own bonds:

Source: @Schuldensuehner 

As noted, US 2-year yields are now at 1.09%, their highest level since April 2010 and roughly double January 2015 average. Now, estimated interest on U.S. federal debt in 2015 stood at around USD251 billion for publicly held debt of USD13,124 billion. Now, suppose we slap on another 0.55%-odd on that. That pushes interest payments on publicly held portion of U.S. debt pile to over USD323 billion. Not exactly chop change...

And another casualty of 'normalization' - global profit margins per BCA Research:
"Over the past two decades, the G7 yield curve has been an excellent leading indicator of global margins. Currently, not only are short-term borrowing costs becoming prohibitive, at the margin, but the incentive to raise debt and retire equity to boost EPS is diminishing. This suggests that profit margins have likely peaked for the cycle."

Here's a chart showing both:

Source: BCA Research

Now, absence of margins = absence of capex. And absence of margins = profits growth on scale alone. Both of which mean things are a not likely to be getting easier for global growth.

Now, take BCA conclusion: "Finally, global junk bonds are pointing to a drop in equities in the coming months, if the historical correlation holds. Indeed, we are heeding the bond market’s message, and are concerned about margin trouble and the potential for an EM non-financial corporate sector accident: remain defensively positioned."

In other words, given the leverage take on since the crisis, and given the prospects for organic growth, as well as the simple fact that advanced economies' corporates have been reliant for a good part of decade and a half on emerging markets to find growth opportunities, all this rates 'normalizing' ain't hitting the EMs alone but is bound to under the skin of the U.S. and European corporates too.

Good luck trading on current equity markets valuations for long...

30/12/15: Slon.ru: Эпоха несправедливости

My new column for Slon.ru is now live and available here: Эпоха несправедливости. Почему России нужно разделять политику и бизнес.

29/12/15: There Are Two Ways 2016 Can Play Out for Euro Area Bonds

With the pause in ECB QE over the holidays season, bond markets have been largely looking forward to 2016 and counting the blessings of the year past. The blessings are pretty impressive: ECB’s purchases of government bonds have driven prices up and yields down so much so that at the end of this month, yields on some USD1.68 trillion worth of Government bonds across 10 euro area countries have been pushed below zero.

Per Bloomberg chart:

Value of bonds with yields below ECB’s -0.3% deposit rate, which makes them ineligible for purchases by the ECB, is $616 billion, just shy of 10 percent of the $6.35 trillion of bonds covered by the Bloomberg Eurozone Sovereign Bond Index. As the share of the total pool of marketable European bonds, negative yield bonds amounted to more than 40% of the total across Europe at the start of December (see here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/40-of-european-government-bonds-sport-negative-yields-and-more-may-follow-2015-12-02).

Two questions weigh on the bond markets right now:
1) Will the ECB expand the current programme? Market consensus is that it will and that the programme will run well beyond 1Q 2016 and spread to a broader range of securities; and
2) Will low inflation environment remain supportive of monetary easing? Market consensus is that it will and that inflation is unlikely to rise much above 1% in 2016.

In my view, both consensus positions are highly risky. On ECB expectations. Setting aside inflationary dynamics, ECB has continuously failed to ‘surprise’ the markets on the dovish side. Nonetheless, the markets continued to price in such a surprise throughout 2015. In other words, current pricing is probably already reflecting high probability of the QE extension/amplification. There is not much room between priced-in expectations and what ECB might/can do forward.

Beyond that, my sense is that ECB is growing weary of the QE. The hope - at the end of 2014 - was that QE will give sovereigns a chance to reform their finances and that the economies will boom on foot of cheaper funding costs. Neither has happened and, if anything, public finances are remaining weak across the Euro area. The ECB has been getting a signal: QE ≠ support for reforms. And this is bound to weigh heavily on Frankfurt.

On inflationary side, when we strip out energy prices, inflation was running at around 1.0% in November and 1.2% in October. On Services side, inflation is at 1.2% and on Food, alcohol & tobacco it is at 1.5%. This is hardly consistent with expectations for further aggressive QE deployment and were ECB to engage in more stimulus, any reversion of energy prices toward the mean will trigger much sharper tightening cycle on monetary side.

The dangers of such tightening are material. Per Bloomberg estimate, a 1% rise in the U.S. Fed rates spells estimated USD3 trillion wipe-out from the about USD45 trillion valuation in investment-grade bonds issued in major currencies, including government, corporate, mortgage and other asset-backed securities tracked by BAML index:

Source here.

European bonds are more sensitive to the ECB rate hikes than the global bonds are to the Fed hike, primarily because they are already trading at much lower yields.

Overall, thus, there is a serious risk build up in the Euro area bond markets. And this risk can go only two ways in 2016: up (and toward a much worse blowout in the future) or down (and into a serious pain in 2016). There, really, is no third way…

28/12/15: Russia: Unsurprisingly Surprising November GDP Print

Per latest report from the Economy Ministry, Russian GDP contracted 0.3% m/m in November in real terms and is down 3.7% y/y over 11 months through November 2015. Compared to 12 months ago, November GDP was down 4%.

This implies that, the economy will likely be down 3.8 percent (by my estimates: 3.8-3.9 percent) in 2015 as a whole. More significantly, with November GDP being down on foot of weaker oil prices and with crude prices continuing to contract through December, we are now less likely to see stabilisation in the economy (zero growth or return to positive growth) in 1Q 2016.

Meanwhile, in November, real wages were down 10% y/y while retail sales were down 13% for eleventh month in a row, according to Rosstat.

Rosstat data shows that over the last 12 months through November, food sales were down more than 11% and non-food goods sales fell nearly 15%. The figures for November 2015 show sharper contraction, in part because in November 2014 retail sales in Russia actually rose on foot of rapid devaluation of the Ruble. But overall, private consumption in Russia continues to run at a level consistent with where it was back in 2011. As noted recently by BOFIT, private consumption in Russia is still some 10 percent above where it was pre-crisis in 2008. Which is no mean feat, as for example, in the case of Ireland private consumption currently remains below its pre crisis levels despite the fact that Irish economy has been recovering very robustly from the crisis in recent years.

Rosstat data shows that seasonally adjusted industrial output fell again in November. Activity in extractive industries in November was unchanged from a year earlier, having supported the output to the upside in previous months. Manufacturing production, however, fell for the third month in a row, down ca 5% y/y in November. BOFIT noted that this suggests that “the impact of increased defence spending that supported manufacturing industries earlier this year is likely fading. First-half defence spending grew on-year by over a third, but since autumn defence spending has fallen.”

All of this supports negative view of the Russian economy going into 2016, summarised in my earlier post here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/281215-bofit-summary-of-2016-outlook.html

The outrun so far has been quite disappointing for the forecasting hawks, including for example Danske Bank analysts who at the end of May 2015 predicted Russian economy will shrink 7.9% y/y in 2015 ( forecast they revised to -6.2% at the end of August 2015).

Or for that matter for seasoned hawks, like Andres Aslund who in January prediction put the matters thus: “Russia’s GDP is likely to plunge in 2015. Indeed, it would be prudent to expect a slump on the order of 10 percent. In many ways, Russia’s financial situation is eerily similar to the fall of 2008, when then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called his country a safe haven in the global financial crisis. In 2009, Russia’s GDP dropped by 7.8 percent. In other ways, the situation seems even worse.” (H/T to @27khv for the link: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/15/russias-output-will-slump-sharply-in-2015/).

But the outrun is also a bit on a reality check to some Russian political and Government figures (including President Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev) who bought into the fragile and dynamically uncertain improvements over Summer 2015 to announce the bottoming out of the economic crisis.

Truth is, Russian economy is a very hard nut to crack for any forecaster, as it is currently subject to a series of coincident shocks that themselves are hard to price and predict: oil prices and gas prices slump, contracting demand for energy globally, including on foot of both geopolitical changes and warm weather; broader commodities prices collapse, including on foot of global demand weaknesses and regional (e.g. China) weaknesses; geopolitical risks and sanctions (including financial sanctions); ongoing deleveraging of the Russian banking sector (including outside Russia, especially in Ukraine and the rest of the Former USSR and in parts of Central and Eastern Europe); domestic structural weaknesses (including those that started manifesting themselves in late 2011 and continue to play weak economic hand to-date); and so on. Thus, we shall be kind to forecasters and politicians making bets on Russian economy’s direction.

I wrote about most of the above already, including the banking sector woes (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/231215-vnesheconombank-where-things.html). And the trends in both manufacturing and services sectors were pretty clear in the PMIs (see http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/41215-bric-composite-pmis-november.html).

But translating these indicators into actual growth performance is a perilous task... as the November figures showed.