leaderboard

Thursday, May 16, 2013

SPX and BKX: One Chart to Rule Them All



Before I even begin this article, I feel obliged to engage in a bit of a tangential rant which actually relates to my charts.  If you're on the hurry-up, or if you find my sense of humor to be confusing and mentally frustrating, then you can skip right to the section titled "Market Update."   
My story begins like this:  A couple months ago, I purchased a new PC.  I'll pause here while we wait for the Mac users to stop laughing, since they already know there is now no possibility of a good ending to this story.  Anyway, like so many others who've bought new PC's recently, I had no choice but to "upgrade" to the latest mutant version of Windows, which is called simply Windows 8 (an inside joke at Microsoft, code for: "Windows ate my desktop!").  As every PC user knows, every so often Microsoft's Crack Team of Windows Engineers feels it's their God-given red-blooded patriotic American duty to cram some new version of Windows down our throats.  They refer to this as "progress," because that sounds better than "a way to continue justifying our expense accounts." 
For those of you fortunate enough to have avoided Windows Ate, basically the iconic "Start" button is gone, and the desktop has been replaced with a series of apps pinned to a home screen.   I was already familiar with the Windows Ate concept, since I've had a Windows phone for years -- and while I think the whole "app" concept is fine for phones, or tablets, or anything smaller than, say, a PC -- I think it stinks for PC's.  
I believe the majority of us who do not presently earn our livings by developing software for Microsoft were entirely satisfied with Windows 7 as a stable, user-friendly OS.  In fact, within two days of having Windows Ate inflicted upon me, I had already installed a program that forced it to emulate the Windows 7 navigation style.  Apparently Microsoft had forgotten that a handful of us still use our computers for something other than watching South Park's take on central bank policy on YouTube all day.    
But even with this productivity upgrade, Windows Ate still does not emulate Windows 7 in terms of reliability.  And the point I'm getting at (if I remember correctly) is that ever since "upgrading" to Windows Ate, my charts act screwy.  When I use Adobe Flash for annotations, the lines and numbers demonstrate all the orderliness of a preschool fire drill, and show no regard whatsoever for remaining in their assigned locations.  Numbers seem to move around of their own freewill, often vanishing from the charts entirely at random -- sometimes magically appearing later on a completely different chart, as if they'd traveled through an inter-cyberspace wormhole.  In fact, the numbers behave in such an incredibly random fashion that I'm fairly convinced I've secretly stumbled onto the exact same algorithm Bernanke is using to set Fed monetary policy.  
Interestingly, when I use Java instead of Flash, almost everything works exactly as it's supposed to, except for one "minor" detail:  with Java, I can only work on the charts at one-half normal size.  Attempting to annotate these diminutive charts requires me to practically press my face directly onto the computer screen, while at the same time squinting really hard -- which makes me feel like some kind of Peeping Tom technical analyst, and I keep expecting to hear tiny screams of "Cad!" emanating from my computer.  
These issues are a complete nightmare for someone who's as much of a perfectionist about charts as I am.  So if you've noticed lately that my charts aren't quite as pretty as they used to be, it's not because I've gotten lazy, it's because Windows Ate them.  I'm working to resolve this issue, with a hammer if necessary, and I'm sure eventually I'll get it all figured out... no doubt just in time for Microsoft to cram Windows? Nein! down our throats.
Market Update
Yesterday we discussed the possibilities for a whipsaw vs. a melt-up, and today I have a chart to share which should go a long way toward providing an early warning if the melt-up is underway.

One of the cardinal technical rules of Elliott Wave Theory is that wave three cannot be the shortest wave.  If the wave we find in the third wave position is the shortest, then that tells us the pattern isn't what we think it is.  The Philadelphia Bank Index (BKX) is currently providing us with an excellent tell in this regard.



The hourly chart of BKX below.  The nice thing with the BKX pattern is it's telling us "either the rally ends here, or it's got a lot farther to run."  There probably isn't much in-between.



SPX hourly below:

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

SPX and NYA: Whipsaw or Melt-Up Coming?


In the last update, I noted that the market looked poised to move higher into the May 6 target zone of SPX 1640-1650, and the market staged a strong rally right from the open, ultimately reaching the upper range of the target zone with ease.  I also discussed that the Philadelphia Bank Index (BKX) should tag 60 or beyond, and it experienced a blistering 2% rally and came within pennies of 60 during that very same session.

So what now?  Well, whenever targets are reached, some order of caution is called for, so let's take a look at the charts and see what's going on.

Let's start off with the big picture, and a weekly chart of the NYSE Composite (NYA).  For many years, I've been a fan of tracking this index, because it's a much better representation of the broad market than the indices which typically steal all the news coverage (like the SPX and INDU).  It's interesting to look back now and see how well NYA has been pointing the way for the past 8 months.

On September 20, 2012, I wrote:

Moving on to equities, and starting with the New York Composite Index (NYA) weekly chart, there are two things that jump out from a price perspective:

1. The recent breakout above a 5-year resistance zone (bullish).
2. 8718 is still intact (not bullish -- not really bearish either, but important).

If you just take a "trade what you see" approach here, then this breakout can't be viewed as anything but bullish.


I tackled this exact same chart again in January 31, 2013, and my observations were as follows:

Finally, I'd like to revisit the long-term NYSE Composite  (NYA) chart, which is one of the charts that's kept me largely in favor of the bull case ever since the key breakout of September 2012.  Note that weekly RSI is again overbought, and again has confirmed the rally to this point.  This behavior typically implies a correction, followed by new highs.

The correction and new highs have both since happened, which brings us to the present.  NYA's weekly RSI has reached the overbought zone again, and although in and of itself this doesn't guarantee a correction, it is something to be cautious of as one precursor.  It is worth noting that the last two times I mentioned this indicator (same dates as above, see chart), the market corrected almost immediately thereafter.  Doesn't mean that's going to happen this time, but we should stay alert for any signs of said correction (there are none so far). 

In either case, there's still no reason to be anything but bullish about this chart from a longer-term perspective.




The Dow Jones Industrials (INDU) have broken out slightly over the upper boundary of the intermediate channel.  In a moment, we'll see that the S&P 500 (SPX) has done the same.




The SPX hourly chart shows a similar breakout.  This is an inflection point, and if bulls can hold the breakout, they have melt-up potential. Bears will need to whipsaw this breakout if they are to get anything going -- and I do think they have a shot at doing exactly that, based on the 5-minute chart which follows (after this chart; SPX hourly below).

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

SPX, RUT, BKX: Market Ignores Fed's Doublespeak


The big news over the weekend came from the Wall Street Journal's report that the Fed is mapping out an exit strategy from their $85 billion per month bond buying programs.  However, it seems concrete details on such a strategy are a bit vague or nonexistent at this point.  This got a lot of play over the past few days -- but in reality, I sincerely doubt anyone was expecting massive Fed stimulus would continue completely unabated for the rest of eternity, so this news was hardly a huge surprise.  And given the vagueness of the details, it seems to be the Fed simply trying to remind us of something we already knew -- undoubtedly at least partially in an effort to forestall inflation.  The Fed is fully aware that inflation has a strong psychological component, and can be compounded or decreased by managing the public's future price expectations. 

And, if the Fed wants to continue printing money with abandon, the one thing it can ill-afford is high inflation showing up within the metrics they track.  So, counter-intuitively, I am of the opinion that these types of statements from the Fed are actually efforts to continue their programs as long as possible. This Fed seems well aware of the PR game involved in monetary policy, and has engaged in misdirection before.

Along the lines of mass psychology, I actually found yesterday's headline on MarketWatch somewhat comical: 

U.S. stocks start week in red as investors consider Fed policy shift

If you just looked at this headline, you could be forgiven for thinking the market reacted in panic to the weekend news.  Instead, the S&P 500 (SPX) actually closed marginally green yesterday, notching a new all-time record closing high; and the Nasdaq Composite (COMPQ) also closed green.  Hmm, where did this "stocks start week in red" thing come from, anyway?  Oh, here we go: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) closed down a whopping 26.81 points (-0.18%), which, these days, practically qualifies as an outright crash.  I can only imagine the sheer confusion experienced by retail bulls across the country last night, when they turned on the evening news and saw this strange "-" symbol in front of 26.81.  No doubt Google was soon swamped with search queries as bulls sought to determine the meaning of  "-" and whether it was a good thing.  Maybe "-" meant the market went up even more than they expected!

Kidding aside, I've made it no secret that I think the Fed is a huge driver of this rally, so obviously we're going to need to keep an eye on this going forward.  But I think some type of more immediately "negative-sounding" information will be needed before the market reacts overly significantly -- after all, right now the money is still flowing freely.  It's not exactly "last call" from the Fed yet -- it's more like: "Hey bulls, the bar's eventually gonna have to close at some point, so... have another drink on us!"

Moving on to the charts -- one of the things I sometimes ask myself when I'm trading is, "Which side of the trade is harder to take right now?"  I mention this because sometimes the market pulls a bit of reverse psychology on us.  On the one hand, usually right about the time everyone figures the market will go up forever, it reverses.  But there's another type of market, and that's the one that has everyone thinking exactly what I just mentioned, and thus looking for that "it can't go up forever!" reversal.  That type of market does the exact opposite: it just keeps going up, because everyone is watching for a reversal and afraid to position long.   It's entirely possible this is that type of market, and until we start seeing some form of sustained reversal, I would advise bears to stay very nimble.

I haven't updated the Russell 2000 (RUT) in a while.  Since before Christmas, I've opined that this chart has been pointed upwards, and once it claimed 902.30, it activated an even higher target of 1000 +/-, which it's now finally approaching.




The Philadelphia Bank Index (BKX) can be counted as five complete waves, but normally we'd still expect to see it run higher before it finishes off the current wave:




SPX now looks poised to capture the preferred near-term targets from May 6.  I am not ruling out the possibility that this count is too conservative, and may be more bullish than shown.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Two Recent Indications that Long-Term Strength for Equities Should Continue


I had planned a lengthy commentary for today, but then my personal life stepped to the fore and cut short not only my trading session, but also just about everything else.  So, I have a number of charts to share, but with less words than I originally intended (some readers actually prefer the pictures anyway).  Also, there are a fair number of words on the charts themselves, which provides an ongoing cover for those who tell their spouses that they read my work "for the articles," and not just to drool over the pretty pictures. 

First up, there is some recent noteworthy behavior in the Dow Jones Bullish Percent Index (BPINDU).  I can't recall updating this chart since November 2012 (See: SPX Update: Intermediate Buy Signal Triggered), because there's really been nothing to say about it since -- at least, until now.  While the current reading is characterized as "overbought," this type of overbought reading also typically suggests a strong trending move in price which will ultimately continue higher.




Next of note is the Philadelphia Bank Index (BKX), which briefly exceeded the 2010 print high.  Earlier in the month I opined that if BKX cleared 57.6 then it was likely headed to the high 58's in fairly short order.  This event now breaks some of the potential bear waves, which further limits the bears' long-term options.  It also made for a quick easy-money trade if you played the breakout.

This is a brand-new signal that the long-term remains bullish:




The hourly BKX chart below:

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

SPX and US Dollar: A Great Time for "Value" Investing. (Bwahahaha!)


The S&P 500 (SPX) has continued to drift higher over the past couple sessions, as expected on Monday.  Now that the market has broken out to decisive new highs, there's nothing in the way of horizontal resistance for the market to struggle with, there's simply channel resistance and Fibonacci zones.  If bears can't reverse this fairly directly, then there's no reason to believe the market won't reach my longer-term targets from January (the mid-to-high 1600's -- and ultimately the mid-1700's).  To be fair, I didn't anticipate we'd get there this directly; I thought we'd see more backing and filling first. 

This is a strange market environment, and if you haven't been trading for a long time, you may not realize exactly how strange it really is.  Due to the Fed's bubble pumping, the market technicals are now deeply detached from the economic fundamentals.  And while the Fed points to things like the "good" jobs number last week as signs that they're doing something helpful for the fundamentals, the reality is that the growth rate in jobs has held steady at the same level it was before the QE-Infinity days.  As I wrote when QE-Infinity was first announced, there's been no statistical link to the QE programs and job creation.

Beyond that, the jobs we're actually creating in this economy are the types of jobs you might have thought were pretty cool back when you were 16 years old because of their "awesome" benefits, such as the benefit of being able to take home an unsold pizza from work, after a grueling night of delivering them.  But if you're an adult these days, you may not be as excited as the Fed is about this "new job growth" -- especially if you have to feed a family, or a particularly large dog.  But the government doesn't differentiate all that in the jobs numbers:  There's no category for "Number of new jobs created which would still leave you eating a ton of Ramen Noodles."

What I (and many other traders) find particularly flummoxing about this market is the fact that the Fed has managed to completely obfuscate the value of everything.  What are equities actually "worth" these days?  How about the dollar, or metals, or oil?  With $85 billion of Nuevo Dinero being pumped into the markets out of the raw ether each month, how on earth can anyone have the faintest clue what anything is actually worth?  It's an auction where the fat cats are playing with Monopoly money -- so the players who actually move this market don't need to be bothered with petty details like "value" anymore.  Maybe that's what the Fed wanted all along.

As long as this money flood goes on, without at least a larger crisis of confidence, bears are probably going to continue having a hard time getting anything to stick.

Speaking of value, I haven't updated the US dollar chart in a long time.  I was consistently bullish on the dollar from September 2011 until July of 2012, at which point I shifted to neutral with a slight bearish bias.  That's where I remain today.  Since July 2012, the dollar has spent those 10 months trading in a very large range.  It's an interesting pattern now -- note the similarity of the moves highlighted by the red boxes.




Last week I noted the Philadelphia Bank Index (BKX) might serve as a warning to bears, and it has now broken out to new highs.  It's now approaching 58.83, the peak of 2010; this is the first time this market has challenged that high since.  Unlike SPX, the BKX has not recovered anything approaching its nosebleed levels of 2007, when it traded at more than double its current price (the peak was 121.16).  As a result, also unlike SPX, BXK does still have lots of horizontal resistance left to contend with, and will continue to be important to keep an eye on.





No change in the SPX count at the hourly level:

Monday, May 6, 2013

SPX Update: Fed Cash Trumps the Prior Sell Signals


On Friday, the intermediate thesis I've been building for a couple weeks (of a larger fourth wave correction) was at best forestalled, or at worst completely blown up.  The signals I noted in April constituted the first serious batch of sell signals I've seen since the Fed started feeding QE-Infinity money into the Primary Dealer accounts back in 2012, and I apparently made a mistake in thinking those signals might work anyway.  Lesson learned.

There's an outside possibility Friday may have been the exhaustion gap of an unpredictable extended fifth wave -- however, there's danger at times like this for an analyst and a trader, because there's always a temptation to latch on to whatever might "prove you right in the end."  So I'm going to override my own slight hesitation and stick to the discipline of the equation: This breakout must be respected as bullish as long as it sticks.  Accordingly, I'm going to publish the "most obvious" bullish wave count until proven otherwise -- but to be fair, we won't really know one way or the other for a session or two.  In this update, I'll outline a few of the signals and key levels to watch.

Even though I've written extensively about the potential for upside surprises during third wave rallies, and about the bullishness of the unprecedented liquidity the Fed is pouring into the market, I myself sometimes forget to "expect the unexpected."  The mini-crash in precious metals during the second week of April got my attention and suggested there might be some underlying cracks in the foundation, but apparently if there were (or are), the Fed has so far been able to print over them.

One of the challenges in Elliott Wave is the fractal nature of sub-dividing waves.  Though I wasn't favoring this view, I mentioned last week that the market had formed five waves up, but it was possible those five waves only marked wave i of a larger five wave structure.  That now appears to be the case, but the even bigger surprise for bears was the extremely shallow nature of the second wave.  Normally second waves will retrace 50% or more of the previous wave -- this one barely corrected at all.

There were numerous indicators suggesting a correction was due, but as I've discussed many times previously, we must at least consider the possibility that this market may simply not behave in line with historical sell indicators until QE-Infinity begins tapering off, or until there is a larger crisis of confidence.  Speaking of, now that May is upon us, there's the historical seasonality factor for bears to ponder (the old "sell in May and go away").  Whether that type of seasonality will work in a Fed-driven market where bulls are endlessly backstopped, and "risk" is a four-letter word, is another question entirely, though.

Things always become a bit tricky this far into a strongly-trending wave, because the smaller waves we'd normally use to triangulate the pattern are compressed and harder to locate.  This is my least favorite portion of any pattern for a number of reasons.  In any case, I made it no secret that I expected more from the recent fourth wave correction, and I won't pretend I wasn't surprised by Friday's action.  But in the bigger picture, the long-term preferred wave count is materially unchanged since January/February (back when everyone thought I was complete loon for favoring it).  This will remain preferred unless the price action gives us some reason to stop favoring it, or until the Fed files for bankruptcy.

(Note: Updated the numbers, but forgot to update the annotation, which should read "BLUE wave 4.")




The near-term count I published on Thursday was invalided before the session closed, which was the only warning cash traders had before the S&P 500 (SPX) gapped open on Friday's job number.  As promised, I'm now showing the most bullish wave count as the preferred interpretation until proven otherwise.  Keep an eye on that blue trend line -- it's one of those "stealth" trend lines that the market's reacted to every time it's touched it.

Note the extreme momentum in RSI on the chart below: normally, that type of reading suggests the next dip will be bought.



No additional comments for the hourly chart:

Friday, May 3, 2013

The Trouble with Bubbles


I hope readers don't mind, but I'm diverging a bit from my usual today, because a) I spent way too much time on this article and b) I'm actually running out of ways to say the same thing over and over regarding the intermediate outlook.  The market outlook remains essentially unchanged on an intermediate basis -- it's still watch and wait at the pivotal 1600 +/- zone.  So today, I'm going to embark on a more overarching economic commentary.

The U.S. Government made big headlines recently by announcing it will pay down a portion ($35 billion) of the national debt this quarter, the first such pay-down in six years.  $35 billion sounds like a lot, until you consider that the national debt has been increasing by an average of $3.83 billion every single day since September 2007.  I guess we're making progress by reversing about 9 days of the past 2,000+ days of debt, but that means we're still left with... let's see, carry the zero... 2,000+ days of debt to go!  If Uncle Sam can maintain this strict level of discipline, we'll be completely paid off by the 23rd century.

I maintain that our policymakers are creating a massive debt-driven bubble, and in this article I'm going to outline why I feel this is a mistake by analogizing some of the unintended consequences in depth (in "debt-th"?). 

Briefly, the historical chart below is from the always-interesting Sentimentrader.com, and shows the current ratio of mutual funds and ETF assets to money market assets.  The chart suggests equities are approaching the upper range of the Bubble Zone.  We can see the current ratio of 3.31 has only been reached once before, in 2006-2007; and we can also see in that instance, equities continued to rise for a while afterwards -- so these types of signals can take time to work.  But they're hard to ignore.  As Edmund Burke said, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."



The x-factor impacting all of our lives and driving the equities bubble has been the Fed's printing press and Quantitative Easing.  The majority of Americans don't even know what QE is, much less care -- but I believe there are genuine consequences awaiting the Fed's current policy, which will ultimately impact the lives of virtually all Americans.  (The fact that you're even reading this suggests you're probably more informed than the average American, and already know what QE is -- but in case you don't, here's the Wiki explanation.)

The Fed's stated goal with QE-Infinity is to improve the labor market -- and yesterday, new jobless claims came in at a five-year low, which undoubtedly has the Fed Governors secretly high-fiving each other in the restroom.  As I see it, though, there's a problem here (beyond hygiene): they are attempting to grow our economy through debt-driven consumption. 

My contention is that there can be no lasting growth though this type of debt expansion.  It will seem to work for a while, because the Fed's printing press is creating a liquidity boom, and that excess liquidity is driving an increase in certain asset prices.  This is not unlike the way they created the housing bubble.  Excess central bank liquidity sends false signals to the market -- essentially, the market sees all the extra cash floating around and incorrectly concludes that the economy is better than it actually is. 

To illustrate the impact of these false signals on the future economy, I'm going to draw an analogical story about a poor man who's suddenly (and erroneously) granted a big line of credit, which he begins using immediately and irresponsibly. Purely for sake of illustration in this story, let's give our hypothetical big spender a name: We'll call him "Benny B" ("B" stands for "Big spender"!  I have no idea who you're thinking of here.)  Benny B has no job and no assets, but he's mistakenly granted a humongous line of credit by our hypothetical credit card bank, which we'll call simply, "The U.S. Government." 

For a while, Benny B can use his line of credit to run around town spending like crazy.  People see him cruising in his limo, dressed in his new Armani suit, and eating at the finest restaurants every night.  The community naturally assumes he's rich, and in short order, Benny B gains a good reputation.  Eventually, Benny B's favorite fancy restaurant even decides to extend a very large monthly tab to him.

Never one to miss an opportunity, Benny B starts treating all his family and friends to dinner at this restaurant every single night.  He runs up his tab higher and higher.  Of course, the restaurant owner sincerely believes Benny will eventually pay his debt -- so each night after the restaurant closes, he includes Benny B's latest tab in the restaurant's asset column as "uncollected profit and revenue."  And since Benny B has an abundance of "friends" nowadays, the owner notes there's an awful lot of new business coming in, night after night.  He decides he needs to hire more chefs and waiters, and also begin an extensive remodel. 

Benny's heightened consumption is sending the restaurant false signals about the overall state of the local economy -- and with the owner now taking action based on those false signals, they have officially been sucked into the Benny B Bubble.

This all seems to be working out great for everyone, for a while anyway.  Benny is living high on the hog and local businesses seem to be benefitting.  Even when it's time for Benny B to start paying down a portion of his debt to the restaurant, there's no crisis right away, because initially Benny can pay some of that debt with his US Government Credit Card (USGCC).  By doing so, he effectively "kicks the can" on a portion of his restaurant debt straight into someone else's "uncollected profit and revenue" column.  Now the restaurant and the credit card company are both inside the Benny B Bubble -- but still, neither of them know it yet. 

For most people, the real trouble would begin when it's time to pay off the debt they kicked over to the credit card -- but not for Benny B!  He's a financial genius, so by the time the first credit card payment comes due, he's managed to finagle a loan from the -- again, purely hypothetical! -- Credit Bubble Bank of China (CBBC), which he uses to pay the interest (but not the principal) on the debt he owes to the credit card company.  He's kicked the can again, and now involved yet another company in his debt scheme.  The bubble grows larger. 

The root problem here is that Benny B isn't producing anything at all; he is only consuming, which temporarily increases demand and thus seems to be stimulating the local economy.  But because his consumption is debt-driven, it is unsustainable, which means the signals it sends to businesses are false.  And, as one example of a direct unintended result, the restaurant owner is now unwittingly doing two things which will actually hurt his business down the road:

1) He's counting Benny B's debts in his asset column.
2) He is relying on Benny's large nightly "revenue" to justify certain forward-looking expenses.

Other businesses are in a similar conundrum -- for example, Benny purchased a new Ferrari on credit, and he's having a new McMansion custom-built by a small local homebuilder (via minimum down payment, of course).  Due to Benny's debt-driven consumption, these other business also mistakenly think things are going better at the moment -- but they too will be hurt down the road. 

Without even consciously thinking in these terms, these businesses naturally assume that, somewhere up the line, Benny B is producing something, which he's exchanging for the money he will then give to them.  After all, money is simply a convenient tool which stores value from one form of production to another, and thus allows us to bypass direct barter.  If we remove its use as an indirect exchange of my goods/services for your goods/services, then money has no intrinsic value of its own.  Benny B's money isn't coming from production (current or future) in any form at all -- in fact, Benny B lacks the ability to produce anything himself -- thus his money is, in effect, completely worthless. 

Still: no one in our story realizes that just yet.

We could go on and on with the can-kicking (if Benny B obtained yet another loan), but for sake of time, let's bring this to conclusion here and assume the CBBC is Benny's lender of last resort.  It's finally time for him to pay that loan -- except he can't, because he has no income.  Thus the CBBC is the first to have Benny's bubble pop in their face.  And since Benny also has no real assets, they have no choice but to write off Benny's debt completely. 

Soon after, the USGCC learns that Benny B had been maintaining the interest on his debt to them with that now-defunct CBBC line credit.  All the money they lent to Benny is gone forever, and they too have to write off his debt.  At this point, Benny B's banks are suffering, but their suffering is not immediately driven home to the local economy.  That's about to change.   

Sadly, as Benny B's massive credit scheme falls apart, he will bring real people down with him.  The restaurant owner is one of the last to learn what's been going on, and he suddenly realizes that the $250,000 line of credit he extended to Benny B will never be repaid.  He sits down that night with the books, recalculating his balance sheet without that $250,000 "asset" (which just vanished back into the thin air from whence it came).  He realizes he can no longer afford the restaurant's new staff, they must all be fired. Worse, he realizes he's now overcommitted on his debts, because he thought he had additional assets, and -- with the restaurant packed with Benny's friends every night -- he thought his business had reached a new permanently-high plateau. 

The false signals Benny B sent caused him to conclude the business was doing much better than it actually was, and much better than is actually sustainable. 

He checks the numbers several times, but there is no way around it.  Without Benny B's nightly business, the owner realizes he is overextended to the point where he can no longer stay afloat at all.  He must close the restaurant, firing everyone.  Benny B's temporary "stimulation of the work force" has backfired in the end.

The small local home builder, who just completed Benny's McMansion, won't go bankrupt immediately, but his future hangs on whether or not he can sell the house quickly and recoup his capital.  The Ferrari dealership is able to repo the car, but it's completely thrashed and littered with empty beer cans and old beard clippings.  They take a write-off.  Not all of the businesses who acted on Benny B's false signals will go bankrupt -- but all will suffer to one degree or another.

Every one of the businesses Benny purchased things from was producing real goods and services, so his demand for those things briefly seemed to stimulate the economy -- yet because Benny's money came from debt and not production, there was no way his spending spree could have any lasting positive impact.  In fact, in the end, it hurt more than it helped.

The problem is debt does not help when used as an end in itself; debt can only stimulate the economy when it is used as the means to invest in future production.  If Benny had taken his loan and built a successful business, instead of simply consuming, this story would have a much different ending.  The same is true of our story out here in the actual world:  In the first decade of the 2000's, each dollar of new credit has produced a mere 18 cents of new GDP, which is ridiculously low from a historical standpoint (contrast that with more than 59 cents per dollar of GDP growth in the '60's), which suggests that most new debt is being used for consumption and speculation.  Debt-driven consumption always backfires in the end, for the same reason it would backfire personally if you simply ran up your own debts endlessly without increasing your income.

To drive this all home to our current situation:  the Fed and our government are "creating" money through debt and from thin air, and this will seem to work for a time.  But real money simply can’t be created from thin air, any more than we can create the tangible things money represents, like cars and houses, from thin air.  


 
The market presently believes there's more demand than there actually is, and is thus expanding accordingly (or, in some cases, shrinking slower than it normally would), which makes this a bubble.  They can’t continue this debt expansion indefinitely; it must end eventually.

At some point they will be forced to stop consuming, because of fiscal problems or due to rabid inflation, or due to something presently completely unforeseen -- and this whole grand economic experiment will fall apart.  Exactly when the endgame arrives is anyone's guess.  But when we finally reach the end of the Fed's rainbow, we'll find there's no mythical pot of gold -- only a pot full of worthless IOU's, which are redeemable for nothing.  Trade safe.

 
Reprinted by permission, copyright 2013 Minyanville Media, Inc.