Investors see Hungary becoming “significantly” less risky, allowing for further reductions in interest rates, central bank Deputy Governor Ferenc Karvalits said. “Over the past few months, international risk appetite has improved significantly, the risk assessment of the region and Hungary has stabilized, and this allows for further easing of monetary conditions,” Karvalits said in an interview on Kossuth Radio today.

The Magyar Nemzeti Bank lowered its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point to 8 percent on Aug. 24 as it works to jolt the economy out of its worst recession in 18 years. The bank has shaved 1.5 points off the key rate since July as confidence rises in the first European Union nation to get a bailout. Hungary received 20 billion euros ($28.5 billion) in an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund, the EU and the World Bank.

The country has a “good chance” to finance its budget deficit from the market and may not need the next installment of the IMF loan, Karvalits said. The forint weakened 0.3 percent against the euro and was trading at 268.82 at 7:48 a.m. in Budapest.

You see, one of the principal reason why Hungary is in such a mess is that as inflation shot up in the months leading up to the crisis Hungary chose to loosen its peg against the Euro. At the time, the rationale seemed wise albeit very bold. In an environment where investors were willing to take risk (i.e. hunting for yield) their objectives could be aligned with that of public authorities in the sense that the former got their yield whereas the latter got the nominal appreciation needed to keep inflation in check.

It did not work quite like that.

As the crisis hastened its grip on global markets and as its locus steadily moved to Eastern Europe the Hungarian Forint plummeted and lay bare the country's vulnerabilities in the context of balance sheet (on the liability) side denominated in Swiss Francs. The result was that Hungary crashed into a recession unable to tweak monetary policy downwards because of a fear that this would scythe the Forint and thus essentially bankrupt scores of households and companies. On the other, the government also had (and has) difficulties raising funds on international capital markets.

Now however things appear to have changed at least for a moment and Hungary's central seem poised to take advantage of the relatively benign market conditions to lower interest rates to support its ailing economy. The underlying idea is simple. If you believe that risk aversion is to stay low, the Forint should not be sensitive towards the lowering of nominal interest rates since after all the carry remains plentiful. In this way, my view is that Hungary's central bank is trying to claw back the control over monetary policy by locking in a lower interest rate for the Forint. The key question which we should be asking ourselves however is of course whether Hungary could actually be forced to raise rates further down the road to defend the Forint. Clearly, bets are being made inside Hungary at the moment that this is not the case.

This is very interesting in a practical as well as a theoretical sense as I have discussed for example in this post about carry trade and global monetary policy. More recently, Edward Hugh mused on the same topic (more or less) invoking the idea of the (eternal) triangle of monetary policy in an open economy context.

In the case of the Central Europe "four", Poland and the Czech Republic opted for maintaining their grip on monetary policy, thus accepting the need for their currency to "freefloat" and move according to the ebbs and flows of market sentiment. As it turns out this decision has served them remarkably well, since the real appreciation in their currencies which accompanied the good times helped take some of the sting out of inflation, while their ability to rapidly reduce interest rates into the downturn has lead to currency depreciation, helping to sustain exports and avoid deflation related issues.

The other two countries (Hungary and Romania), to a greater or lesser degree prioritised currency stability, and as a result had to sacrifice a lot of control over monetary policy, in the process exposing themselves to the risk of much more violent swings in market sentiment when it comes to capital flows. Having been pushed by the logic of their currency decision towards tolerating higher inflation, they have seen the competitiveness of their home industries gradually undermined, and as a consequence found themselves pushed into large current account deficits for just as long the market was prepared to support them, and into sharp domestic contractions once they were no longer disposed so to do.

Edward's account here is important since it alerts us to the fact that it was only at the very end that e.g. Hungary opted for float because it was believed that it would make the inflation problem go away. At that point however, the structural imbalances and essentially damage were already embedded in the system of course. Nevertheless, it is unequivocally the fact that Hungary, at the moment, is attempting to benefit from the relative benign market conditions which means that risk aversion remains relatively subdued.

Elsewhere in Market Land ...

If our little trip to Hungary suggests that risk is on, if only a little bit and potentially in the case of Hungary news elsewhere suggest that the waters are more choppy. Of course, none of this is earth shattering by any means of the word, but since much, if not everything, seems to be revolving around China at the moment it seems worthwhile to dwell at recent news on how China are expected to "tweak" its hitherto lax lending policies to skim the worst of the mounting bubble (quote below from Bloomberg).

China’s banking regulators are “tweaking” lending policies to remove “froth” from the system while growth remains the top priority for policymakers, according to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc. The goal is to manage risk exposure among banks and asset quality by checking lending from going into A-shares traded on the mainland and properties, Wendy Liu, Hong Kong-based head of China research at RBS ABN Amro, said in a report dated yesterday.

(...)

The banking regulator sent draft rule changes to banks on Aug. 19 that would require lenders to deduct all existing holdings of subordinated and hybrid debt sold by other lenders from supplementary capital, said the people, who have seen the document and declined to be named as the matter is private. This may cut lending by as much as 700 billion yuan ($102 billion), China International Capital Corp. said Aug. 24.

Of course, the main bias of the Chinese stimulus program and thus the authorities' objective remain one of promoting growth through the expansion of domestic investment and, one would assume, consumption. As RBS ABN Amro's Wendy Liu is quoted of saying; "policymakers have a far greater tolerance for asset-price appreciation over the medium term than before". That sounds about right to me even if I am no sage, at all, on China.

What is interesting in the case of the recent news from China was also the following piece by Bloomberg whose headline (Yen Strengthens as China Policy Concern Spurs Demand for Safety) makes a direct link between policies in China and risk sentiment in the market and thus also the movement of the Yen and the USD (remembering of course the narrative that repatriation of profits may ultimately be the main driver of the Yen at the moment).

The yen rose for a third day against the euro in the longest stretch of gains since July on concern Chinese production curbs would slow economic recovery, fanning demand for the relative safety of Japan’s currency. The currency gained versus major counterparts including the pound on speculation Japan’s exporters are repatriating earnings to take advantage of a new tax law. A government report today may show a faster contraction in the U.S. economy than previously estimated.

“We have talks from China cutting back expanding, trying to sort out the balance sheet and prevent too much reckless lending,” said Peter Frank, a London-based currency strategist at Societe Generale SA. “But domestic factors, like capital repatriation, are driving yen’s strength right now.”

Whether there is a history to be made here is debatable, but one thing is certain. China seems to have decidedly taken center stage in the global market discourse. Finally and essentially as a small footnote, yours truly took notice of the fact that despite the decidedly positive sentiment in the core of Europe at the moment on the back of the Q2 GDP print and upbeat confidence readings in Germany, aggregate retail sales continued their steady decline.

Whether all this signifies that risk is "on" or "off" I will allow the reader to decide for themselves. Personally, I am still bearish, but it is difficult to deny that the relative calm and positive environment that has prevailed since spring seems rather strong. I would expect sentiment to change once we return to "normal" in Q4 once the elections in Germany and Japan have been resolved and, more importantly, once OECD stimulus packages start to wane. Most importantly however, there is the situation in Southern and Eastern Europe still loom as the most likely harbringers of, if you will, black swans in which case risk almost surely would be off.

In a bubble, Day and Night

Is it Bust or is it Boom

That frames thy fearful asymmetry?*

 (click on pictures to enlarge)

Can you feel it? That calm and soothing feeling of low volatility and heaven bound risky assets driven by green shoots and second derivatives. Well, if you can't you are excused since neither can yours truly, or more precisely; he has a distinctly difficult time seeing from where people get the idea that we are headed for a broad based global recovery. However, beauty as always lies in the eye of the beholder and whichever way you look at it would be difficult to completely deny that the three key ingredients for a global recovery (and a resurgence of carry trade) in the form of low volatility, steadily climbing risky assets, and benign credit wholesale market credit conditions certainly seem to be present in ample quantities.

Now, while it is true that the level of volatility is still higher now than it was pre Q4-2008 and indeed pre August 2007 the trend so far this year has been inexorably down which reflects the perception that the worst may be over as well as the discourse of second derivatives and green shoots which has been with us throughout Q2 2009. With respect to equities they have equally begun to nudge up and are up some 5-10% from the beginning of the year in relation to Europe and the US. If you count from the trough reach some time during the first quarter this year, the increase would of course be bigger. The strength of the recovery discourse has taken many by surprise or perhaps more precisely, it has frustrated many. For example, I take note of the fact that two of the most astute macro traders (at least in my book) are feeling decidedly puzzled by the way the market is behaving at the moment. I cannot say that I blame them. For someone who take pride in being up to date in terms of macroeconomic data and analysis one would find it difficult to track the amount of bullishness which currently appear to have taken hold.

Now, I should immediately point out that I am not blind to the existence of the second derivative. I mean, I took calculus and I can also eyeball a graph in changes when I see one. My only gripe is that it only takes the faintest of scratch in the surface of the second derivative/green shoot glamour image to see that the fundamentals have not changed and moreover that the crisis has now moved its locus away from the US and right smack into the mainland of Europe in the form of significant downside risks in relation to Southern Europe and the ongoing mess in the CEE.

Yet, who is listening to a Danish student of economics anyway?

Consider consequently that the past couple of weeks brought us Bernanke's "exit talk" testimony to congress, news that a certain Mervyn residing at Threadneedle street would beat Bernanke to the exit, news that Russia is actually seriously considering issuing (and expecting foreign investors to bite) debt to cover its 2010 deficit, news that Hungary actually lowered interest rates despite, one could easily infer, an abyss of downside in the form of a plunging forint and a liability side denominated in Swiss francs, and finally Timmy's trip to China where it seems that the main message carried was one of reassurance that the US most certainly intend to vigilant towards the rising deficit.

We could add the Q2 GDP print in the US (preliminary) put up a much better figure, - 1% annualised, than expected which has so far been interpreted as a sign of recover although yet again I think that narrating this as a sign of an impending recovery is somewhat of a stretch. Meanwhile, Europe is heading straight for deflation and although I know that some economists, especially those of the old academic guard, consistently have been pointing to the benign effects of rigidness on the downside it is very important to remember that those same prices will need to adjust in key Eurozone countries absent a currency to bear some of the burden and thus price/wage rigidity may turn out to be a curse rather than a blessing.

Where is the Recovery?

The easiest way to approach this question is perhaps to point out where the recovery isn't and here I am talking about the OECD in general. Surely, we may succeed to avoid future cataclysmic events but the something has changed and new fundamentals are taking over. For example, I seriously doubt that many people have considered what it means for the global economy that the US economy will need to run an external surplus and I also think that most people have not yet realized the consequences of the unfolding mess in Europe and the Eurozone. On the other hand I have also stressed before how I am not, after all, a permabear in the sense that I do indeed see positive signs in emerging economies such as for example Brazil, India, Chile, Turkey, and China (although the latter is different for a number of reasons). I won't call this decoupling because evidently it isn't. To stay in the jargon I would rather call it re-coupling since this is essentially what it is and one key issue is the extent to which the new global economic system will help to even out the present imbalances and what consequences this, in some sense, inevitable rebalancing will have on surplus and deficit economies respectively. In this context and although one should always be careful in quoting onself, the following from an entry back in May still sums up quite well how I see the world at the moment;

We are very much still stuck in the mire and especially so in the context of the so-called developed OECD economies where it is difficult to see where any speedy recovery is going to come from. On the other hand the world is not made up entirely by the OECD edifice and it is exactly the potential for an asymmetric "recovery" and how global monetary policy might serve to transmit such a recovery which is the topic of this entry.

For the specifics of how I see the role of global monetary policy and global liquidity I recommend you to visit the actual post. However, it is worth noting that in a world where major global central banks are destined to keep rates low for an extended period it does not take much creativity to imagine the dynamics by which the global economy may potentially move forward driven by carry trade flows financed in the developed world seeking yield in whatever economies that might be able (and willing) to absorb the tide which is coming.

As I have stressed on several occasions it is exactly this reshuffling of the global economy on the back of the financial crisis which is at the heart of the matter. One obvious consequence is thus that the global economy, at one and the same time, increasingly will be populated by an increasing amount of economies with the need (and desire) to deleverage as well as an increasing amount of economies dependent on exports to achieve economic growth. In wonkish terms, global economies will tend to move towards the same intertemporal preference for consumption and saving and since global intertemporal smoothing, by definition, occurs through current account imbalances it is not difficult to see how there is a constraint on many economies’ ability to smooth their consumption and saving decisions optimally in the case of a process of crowding in one end of the spectrum.

An obvious question here becomes; who, if any, will be the economies tilting the scale in the other direction through their ability to provide capacity (return) for other nations' desire to save more?

How are things in Emerming Market Land then?

Personally, I have tended to put my focus elsewhere than China most prominently because I think that the old narrative of the BRIC economies taking over the helm is not an adequate way to look at it. Essentially, I would put Brazil and India one one side and Russia and China on the other side since in the case of the latter they are about to grow old much before they become the economies so many people expect to become. Apart from Brazil and India I also see a fairly wide batch of emerging economies with the potential to do the heavy lifting as we move forward and I would include here economies such as Chile, Indonesia, Turkey, Morroco and a number of others. Much more than quibbling about the actual candidates here I want to emphasise the importance in realizing how this global realignment won't take place with the emergence of one single economy taking over from the US, but rather with a "basket" of economies/currencies driving the realignment.

Having said all this, it is pretty difficult to get around the fact that everything seems to be revolving around China at the moment. More specifically fears are growing that in an effort the counter the global recession and in a world where 6-8% growth rates are, in general, difficult to come by Chinese authorities as well as foreign investors are fuelling a bubble in China which may look like the one currently unravelling in e.g. the Baltics look minuscule [quote from Bloomberg and the FT]. Thus and even though I would argue that the analysis should have a different fundamental focus it is still cast in the perspective of, first China and then the BRICs in general.

The BRIC nations, which also include India and Russia, have the four best performing stock markets in dollar terms this year among the world’s 20 biggest, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. China’s Shanghai Composite Index has soared 85 percent in dollars while Brazil’s Bovespa Index rose 77 percent. India’s Sensitive Index, or Sensex, climbed 61 percent and Russia’s RTS Index gained 60 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in the U.S., by comparison, is up 8.4 percent while Japan’s Nikkei 225 Stock Average rose 7.5 percent.

Investor appetite for emerging-market assets is building on speculation that countries such as China and Brazil will be among the first to recover from the worst global recession since World War II, said Vinicius Silva, New York-based emerging markets strategist for Morgan Stanley. “It highlights the fact that demand for emerging-market assets remain strong and that companies, particularly in the BRIC markets, are using the improvements in capital markets to raise capital,” Silva said.

(FT)

Shares in Shanghai and Hong Kong tumbled on Wednesday as investors snapped up two newly listed mainland construction groups while selling down the rest of the market after reports that China’s central bank might rein in bank lending. Shares in China State Construction Engineering rose by as much as 90 per cent on their debut before closing 56 per cent stronger in Shanghai. China’s largest house-builder had last week raised Rmb50.2bn ($7.34bn) in the world’s biggest initial public offering since Visa raised $19bn in March 2008.

It is way beyond the scope of this post to open the box on what is really going on China. In terms of that topic I reserve the right to deal with it later and refer, thus far, to my styling on Blake above. However, I did like the recent analysis by Morgan Stanley's Qing Wang in which he talks about whether China is over-investing or over saving as well as the very relevant question of where the money would be spent were it not being used to finance the massive infrastructure investment program. Or, what is the opportunity cost of China's fixed asset investment program?

Given China's high national savings rate, from the perspective of the economy as a whole, there are only three forms in which China can deploy its savings: 1) onshore physical assets; 2) offshore physical assets; and 3) offshore financial assets. Since China maintains tight controls over outbound capital flows, about 70% of China's total offshore assets are in the form of official FX reserve assets as a result of investment made by a single-largest investor - the central bank. Moreover, we estimate that about 65-70% of China's official FX reserves are invested in US dollar assets, the bulk of which are US government bonds.

In response to this I ask the simple question. What is actually the capacity in China to create return on current and future investment of the magnitudes we are talking about both in the context of money supplied by domestic stimulus packages as well as foreign money thirsty for yield? Wang touches exactly upon this question as he questions just how much China can suck up. I would put it much more bluntly. China's capacity is declining and will continue to do so as we move forward as a result of the ageing which the one child policy is set to produce. This is really the missing story on China at the moment I feel and one story which could go a long way to differentiate the story. In this respect I do agree wholeheartedly with Michael Pettis when he says;

I have warned for a long time that it would be very difficult for China to make the necessary transition to a consumption-led economy quickly enough to accommodate the global adjustment taking place. Unless it is willing to see its economy collapse, there is simply no way China can reduce its negative net demand quickly enough to match the contraction in US demand and so avoid squeezing the hell out of the global tradable goods sectors. That is why policy coordination is so important, especially between China and the USD, and of course that is why I continue to be a pessimist. I do not think this policy coordination is taking place. I will write about this more later this week.

The only thing I would add is that this is not simply a question of correcting US-China imbalances, but a more more deep rooted issue in terms of fundamental drivers of international capital flows and the future supply of net capacity.

Moving on to safer ground I recently did a lengthy analysis on Chile in which I concluded that the economy was one of to watch for relative good news in relation to the financial crisis. Recently, we learned how Chilean banks booked a healthy US 959 million profit in the first half of 2009 and although this number is useless in itself I think that it is pretty obvious from digging into the specifics (see article) that although Chile financial sector has seen its share of losses, the picture is a lot less dire than elsewhere. In fact, if we look at one of graphs that I showed in my analysis of Chile, we see that financial services have held up remarkably well during the financial crisis (see also here), no doubt due to strong underlying fundamentals as well as a very aggressive policy reaction from the central bank. 

Generally, analysts and local observers in Chile are beginning to notice green shoots with increasing regularity and unlike the ones observed in Europe or elsewhere in the OECD I am more confident that the ones in Chile are going to be long lived although 2009, in all likelihood, will be a tough year when the chapter is closed. The following quote is from Bloomberg;

Chile’s economy may be starting to recover from its slump as extra government spending spurs growth, Finance Minister Andres Velasco said today. Velasco has spent more than $4 billion this year on tax cuts and extra outlays. He will pull $8 billion from Chile’s offshore savings funds in 2009 to help pay for the stimulus as well as to plug the budget deficit caused by slowing growth and lower receipts from mining.

Chile is facing the deepest recession since 1999 after revenue from exports declined and a virus ravaged its salmon farming industry. The economy shrank faster than forecast in the first half and probably contracted in the second quarter from the first, the central bank said on July 8.

“These policies have effects, but they don’t occur overnight, they don’t happen in one month or one quarter,” Velasco said. “We have to continue working, we have to keep a cool head and at the same time be prudently optimistic.”

Now, Velasco has a distinct interest, of course, in spinning the story in a certain way but until evidence surfaces to the contrary I am willing to buy this story. More generally, the influence of China also pops up in the context of copper prices where many suggest that a large part of the recent increase in Copper prices (and indeed commodities) owes itself exactly to the stimulus money from China. As a side note on this, it seems that the link between rising Copper (and commodities in general) is being increasingly linked to a story of stockpiling in China and then of course, what will happen when China decides that it has had enough. This was a story I picked up on in my analysis of Chile (picked off from Macro Man) and it appears to be gaining traction as an actual analytical explanation.

Elsewhere in Latin America, Morgan Stanley's Latam analyst on Brazil Marcelo Carvalho simply throws in the towel, as it were, devotes an entire note to the link between Brazil and China and what this means for the economic growth of the former. As will come as no surprise Carvalho notes the strong link between Brazil's economic performance and commodity prices and since China certainly seems to be driving the latter, if not directly, then through its effect on overall global sentiment then the rampant growth in China may add positively to the outlook in Brazil.

Moving the perspective up a further notch and as a concluding remark on my, admittedly, selective tour of the emerging market edifice I will leave you with the recent general statement from Morgan Stanley's Manoj Pradhan;

The strong worldwide rally in risky assets since March reflects not just the relief that the worst is likely behind us, but also anticipation of a return to growth for most economies. Much is expected from Emerging Markets, particularly from Asia ex-Japan, which is expected to outperform the rest of the world. Markets and investors realize, however, that not all EM economies are alike, and some will show output growth that is lower than the 1.3% growth our global team expects from the G10 economies in 2010.

Thanks for nothing might be your immediate response here and although I agree that this is extremely general it does sum up the main discourse at the moment whether you agree or not.

Bottomline - What to Watch?

The answer to this question depends on your perspective of course but it seems abundantly clear that if the locus of the financial and economic crisis has moved from the US to the shores of Europe and in particular Eastern and Southern Europe, the corresponding locus of the recovery has moved to Asia (ex-Japan) and most forcefully China. I think it is important to understand how and why these two discourses may co-exist as we move forward.

I believe it is obviously clear that the global economy is not heading for a quick rebound here, but it is equally as clear that some economies will be able to post growth rates that are much above the mean of what the OECD is able to. In this way, one key theme to watch is how this difference is transmitted through to the global economy e.g. in the form of carry trade flows but also in the form of an evolving process by which some economies begin, and go through, their inevitable adjustment and rebalancing phase.

In this specific context I have to be more than a little bit skeptical about the capabilities of China. This is not out of an inherent disdain towards the country but, on the contrary, because I fear that China may ultimately succumb to all those hopes and subsequent load pinned on her shoulders. In this sense I think, although I acknowledge that I have presented no formal analysis to back it up, that the recovery is some way to really materialize and that it may just ultimately be bust and not boom that frames China's economy.

---

* Apologies to William Blake; and of course to Macro Man for encroaching on his territory.

In another reduction of alternative indexes that use different valuations and business fundamentals to weight companies, Claymore Advisors is seeking to switch an existing exchange-traded fund to a more traditional market-cap size weighted benchmark.

But that isn't all.

In a filing dated May 21, the trust for the Claymore/Great Companies Large-Cap Growth ETF (NYSE: XGC) is asking the Securities & Exchange Commission to let it invest in much smaller companies. And while listed largely on U.S. exchanges, they'd be foreign-based businesses.

The new fund would be called the Claymore/BNY Mellon International Small Cap ETF.

The document notes that the new ETF's "investment objective is not fundamental" in nature. It clearly states the change will revert to a strictly passive indexing approach. (See filing here.)

The request to regulators by Claymore comes on the heels of PowerShares' decision to close 19 of its ETFs, a dozen of which were based on fundamental indexes created by Rob Arnott's Research Affiliates. (See related story here.)

While the existing XGC also follows an index, it's based on an investment approach by Great Companies Inc., a Tampa Bay, Fla.-based money management firm. Its managers rank companies by such factors as price-earnings growth rates, or PEG ratios, and various debt measures for assessing profitability.

Great Companies uses computers to crunch fundamental data to compare value characteristics against growth metrics for domestic large-cap names. Stocks are ranked and added to the ETF's underlying index according to the adviser's composite scoring system.

When it was launched in April 2007, XGC came with an expense ratio of 0.60%. It hasn't changed since then and it had slightly more than $3.7 million in assets through Tuesday.

Higher Price Tag 

When it was first coming to market, a Great Companies' portfolio manager acknowledged that XGC's price tag was higher than rival large-cap funds such as Vanguard and iShares. "But we're providing more of a managed-account product than a classic index-fund product," he said in a MarketWatch.com story at the time. (You can read the story here).

The new small-cap international ETF would face stiff competition as several newcomers have jumped into the asset class in the past few years. But one bone of contention for U.S.-based investors in often illiquid foreign waters is that it can be difficult to follow small-cap names held by their funds.

The new Claymore offering would address that concern by predominately investing in overseas firms with listings on major U.S. exchanges. The fund would hold mainly companies with American depositary receipts or global depositary receipts and market caps of $250 million to $2 billion.

At the end of March, such a makeup gave the underlying index a definite slant to emerging markets. The BNY/Mellon benchmark consisted of 92 stocks. The weightings by country then were: Brazil 21.37%; China 19.20%; India 7.28%; United Kingdom 6.88%; Chile 5.59%; Mexico 4.19%; Russia 3.64%; Japan 3.40%; Israel 3.10%; Netherlands 2.78%; Greece 2.64%; South Africa 2.57%; Italy 2.14%; Argentina 1.98%; Switzerland 1.96%; France 1.89%; Korea 1.79%; Australia 1.68%; Ireland 1.61%; Colombia 1.51%; Hungary 1.00%; U.S. 0.82%; Indonesia 0.50%; Hong Kong 0.46%; Denmark 0.45% and Germany 0.41%.

No expense ratio is listed in the filing. But if the new fund were in the same neighborhood as XGC's, it would seem to have a better fighting chance when competing in the small-cap international arena.

Prices for rival ETFs range from around 0.40% and up. For example, the group's granddaddy is the WisdomTree International SmallCap Dividend Fund (NYSE: DLS). Meanwhile, Vanguard entered the field in March with an ETF charging 0.38%. (For a more complete breakdown on competing international small-cap ETFs, see stories here and here.)

-- This report was submitted by IndexUniverse.com's Murray Coleman. 

Whether it is merely temporary or a sign of something more durable it is hard to escape the fact that as the discourse on green shoots and second derivatives linger we might be entering a new leg of this crisis. Thus, there should be no mistake. We are very much still stuck in the mire and especially so in the context of the so-called developed OECD economies where it is difficult to see where any speedy recovery is going to come from. On the other hand the world is not made up entirely by the OECD edifice and it is exactly the potential for an asymmetric "recovery" and how global monetary policy might serve to transmit such a recovery which is the topic of this entry. In order to frame the discussion, it is worthwhile to go back to before the crisis where, most notably, the low interest rate environment in Japan was driving carry trading activity across the world with Australia, New Zealand, the Eurozone, the US as notable targets in the developed world edifice where also of course emerging markets were in the spotlight. Whether there are similarities with such historical flashbacks can be debated; but what is abundantly clear is that conditional on the return of some variant of an environment conductive to the carry trade something has also changed.

This change is most clearly expressed through the process by which the US Fed's credible commitment to maintain low rates may become the driving force for a search for yield and return (carry trade) in key emerging economies. In that light, my good friend Edward Hugh recently authored two extraordinarily important pieces and although it is hardly news that I plug Edward at this space I highly recommend you to have a look at these two. Nay, it is imperative that you read them.

The main thrust of the story is that after having observed green shoots throughout since February the carry trade wheel appears to be revving up again. Volatility have come down, risky assets have flown, money market rates in the G3 are beginning to behave, and reports have even come in that a seasoned carry trade veteran Miss Watanabe is once again dipping her toe although people close to the data also suggest that a lot of the effect from Miss Watanabe is clouded by Japanese corporates playing with transfer pricing.

[click on graphs for better viewing]

But, as noted, this time there is a twist. Sure, the BOJ is still running an almost open shop with respect to the provision of funding  to play the game but relative to the carry trade of old days, something has changed. Now, it is not the only the BOJ anymore but also the BOE, to a lesser extent the ECB, and most importantly the Fed who are forced to commit to very low levels of nominal interest rates in order to fight off deflation as well as to commit to the support of the restoration of a financial system which has been mortally wounded during the evolving crisis. In a world where uncertainty is high this is a prerequisite to avoid disaster, but in a world where sentiment suddenly shifts to the better it potentially becomes the underpinning factor for what some have dubbed the mother of all carry trades. It is of course this which we have been observing more than passing evidence of in the past weeks.

In a global macroeconomic context, this all goes back to the discussion of re-balancing and decoupling. In the most recent print edition The Economist calls it decoupling 2.0 and although I never liked the idea of decoupling as it was traditionally narrated with Europe or perhaps China taking over as the global supplier of net capacity (demand) it was also always going to be a very true narrative. To put it in other terms; the world decoupled a long time ago and it has long been clear that big emerging economies would rise to the scene to command a much larger relative position.

Besides this common ground, I have mainly had two gripes with the narrative. Firstly, the original idea that Europe and Japan would rise to the occasion to take over from the US was a mirage masked by the simple fact that the Fed reacted more quickly and swiftly to the incoming storm. Secondly, I have also been skeptical about the idea of China (and Russia even) providing demand through a more liberal policy towards the management of its capital account and currency. Essentially, Goldman Sachs' old conceptualization of the BRICs should be allowed to move into the eternal dust bin not only because there is a fundamental difference between China/Russia and Brazil/India, but also  because the emerging market edifice is much more diverse and important to be reduced to the whims of the punch line department at the world's biggest and arguably best investment bank. 

With these points on the table it is of course worthwhile to ask whether investors and other market participants are responding to this new narrative of vibrant growth in emerging markets and subsequent carry trade opportunities.

Even a modest glance over the recent news bulletins suggests almost a feeding frenzy as investors and their advisors scramble to exploit whatever window of opportunity that may have opened to make some easy money in an otherwise extraordinarily difficult environment. One notable example was in the context of the CEE economies where Deutche Bank recently suggested that investors borrow in Euros to buy the Ruble and the Forint. Of course, there are carry trades and then there is; well Russian roulette, and of all the potential punts out there this one would seem, to me, the equivalent of a trip to Las Vegas, playing on horses or another derivative of gambling. Apart from DB, Barclays have also picked up the baton with analyst Andrea Kiguel providing the main points that the Brazilian Real and Turkish Lira be the preferred targets of choice;

Brazil’s real, South Africa’s rand and Turkey’s lira offer the “largest upside” as investors return to the so-called carry trade, Barclays Plc said. A global pickup in investor demand for higher-yielding assets and signs the worst of the global recession is over “bode very well for the comeback of the emerging-market carry trade,” analysts including Andrea Kiguel in New York wrote in a report. The carry trade refers to the practice where investors borrow funds in a country with lower interest rates and then invest the money in nations where returns are higher.

Brazil’s real has gained 18 percent in the past three months against the U.S. dollar while Turkey’s lira has advanced 10 percent. South Africa’s rand is up 22 percent, the best performing emerging-market currency in the past three months. “As the decline of global risk aversion gives way to the re-pricing of U.S. dollar, we see potential for emerging-market foreign exchange to continue rallying,” analysts including Andrea Kiguel in New York wrote in a report.

The American Banks want to play ball too and emphasising the unusual and lingering low interest rate environment in Europe, Japan, and the US; JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are hailing all systems go.

The carry trade is making a comeback after its longest losing streak in three decades.

Stimulus plans and near-zero interest rates in developed economies are boosting investor confidence in emerging markets and commodity-rich nations with interest rates as much as 12.9 percentage points higher. Using dollars, euros and yen to buy the currencies of Brazil, Hungary, Indonesia, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia earned 8 percent from March 20 to April 10, that trade’s biggest three-week gain since at least 1999, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Insight Investment Management and Fischer Francis Trees & Watts have begun recommending carry trades, which lost favor last year as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression drove investors to the relative safety of Treasuries. Now efforts to end the first global recession since World War II are sending money into stocks, emerging markets and commodities.

Speaking a language most investors can understand Bloomberg reports that a composite index constructed by ABN Ambro where the Euro, Yen, and USD are used to buy Turkish Lira, Brazilian Real, the Forint etc has so far earned an annualized 196 percent from March 2 to April 10. Such kind of rapid reversal of fundamentals can only be underpinned by a very strong dose of positive sentiment as the one we have been witnessing with all the talk about green shoots and second derivatives. As Macro Man points out the most recent survey on Global Funds Managers from Bank of America and Merril Lynch sported the biggest degree of optimism since 2004 and, naturally, a substantial re-allocation of assets towards emerging markets.

Now, this is of course all well and good but the underlying economic dynamics here are not as straight forward as they may seem. There are particularly two issues worth noting. 

On the one hand there is the simple issue of where all the liquidity provided by the BOJ, the ECB and the Fed is going. Only recently, the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Donald Kohn pointed out that after getting a one trillion dollar boost from the Fed's purchase of treasuries and asset backed securities (most notably the MBS) the economy appeared to be on the mend. Leaving aside the question of whether the economy is actually on the mend or not the more fundamental question is the extent to which the Fed, the ECB and the BOJ can govern where exactly this "boost" is going and, of course, subject to what leverage multiple. This, I think, was what made Paul Krugman ever so timidly to venture the idea the perhaps some form of buy American/protectionism wasn't as bad as it was meant out to be. In a European context we can ask a similar question about whether all the liquidity provided by the ECB will simply move into the CEE to play the carry there and consequently further exacerbate the imbalances which have not been unwound yet.

On the other hand there is the receiving end where some emerging markets are already reeling under the prospects of sucking up the inflows. The first proverbial shot across the bow was fired by Henrique Meirelles who is in charge of the Brazilian central bank. Recently, he consequently pointed out that the central bank is standing ready to increase the purchases of USD in order to stem the unduly appreciation of the Real on the back of carry trade optimism and a resurgence of the upward trend in commodities which is a core driving force in the Brazilian case. But this runs much deeper than Meirelles recent comments. Going back to the last time, before the crisis, many emerging markets and commodity linked economies also squirmed under the pressure of inflows. Of course and undoubtedly much to the chagrin of many central bankers, raising rates to quell the inevitable inflation which comes on the back of hot money inflows only serves to worsen the problem. Thus, and with a number of central banks stuck at near 0 % in nominal interest rate, raising rates only intensifies the pressure. This was abundantly clear in economies such as Brazil, India, New Zealand, Australia, and most importantly in the CEE where many economies actually depegged with respect to the Euro because it was believed that the carry flows would lead to nominal appreciation which would choke off the inflation. The most ardent example of an attempt to halt the carry pressure was of course Thailand where capital controls on inflows were installed, not in order to to stem an outflow as originally described in the literature, but rather to avoid to much money coming in.

The key to understand this process is the nature of global monetary policy and the so-called credit channel. This is one of the reasons why I demand that you read Edward's posts linked above, but you could also go right to the source in the form of a paper by Danish economist Carsten Valgreen as well as my own account of said paper. The point is simply the extent to which economies can loose control over monetary policy and what this means. There is ample evidence I think that in a world where interest rate differentials of the current magnitude represent an inbuilt part of the edifice, there exist notable externalities from monetary policy. One aspect of this is created by the fact that some central banks basically have committed to a prolonged period of quantitative easing and another aspect is created by the fact that as the crisis ripples through, the world will be saddled with more economies than before dependent on exports to grow. These two facts taken together suggest that the pressure on those brave souls out there willing to stand up and run a deficit will also face what I have come to call a "turret ride" since when times are good the inflows may seem excessive only to retreat if the mood turns sour. As noted, following traditional convention hot money inflows can create investment bubbles and inflationary pressures (if you don't have the capacity) and the answer would be to raise rates, but if the low risk environment persists such policy measures will only intensify the pressure. I think that this aspect of the global economy is very important to take aboard.

Into the Light with Wings of Wax?

This may of course be much ado about nothing since in the current environment wreckers of havoc to the carry trade and any other kind of risk prone activity potentially lies around every corner. In this sense I agree with people closer to the market than myself. However, it is still worth paying attention to the way markets and investors are reacting and then to think about the consequences of the joint commitment by the big central banks to keep rates low. Clearly, such commitments are always subject to withdrawal if and when the respective central banks see it fit to suck back the liquidity, but so far that point is far into the horizon. This means that we are about to see just how much capacity there is to absorb the carry flows and where the money ultimately will flow. Some investors will certainly be flying equipped only with similar wings as Icarus while some again will be sporting a set of more durable wings. Whatever the future days and weeks will bring, I for one think it is fascinating to watch.

The growth in emerging markets can now be played by country-specific exchange-traded funds as well as broad-based stock portfolios.

But on Thursday, another option became available to investors. The first family of ETFs offering exposure to sectors within emerging markets was launched by New York-based Emerging Global Advisors.

• EGS Emerging Markets Energy Fund (NYSE Arca: EEO). It tracks an index of the 30 largest emerging markets companies in the oil and gas industry across 13 countries.
• EGS Emerging Markets Metals & Mining Fund (NYSE Arca: EMT). It includes 30 of the biggest emerging market companies in the metals and mining sectors across nine countries.

As first-movers in the market, the two new emerging markets sector ETFs are setting the cost bar for such a niche at an expense ratio of 0.85% apiece. But Holderith described the new sector ETFs as trading vehicles that would particularly open new avenues for institutional investors.

Despite the relatively high price tag, that might be enticing for hedge fund managers and other investment groups trying to shift large amounts across various emerging markets.

Richard Kang, who serves as the firm's director of research, noted that developing markets can run into rather severe liquidity problems at times. He pointed to the fact that stock exchanges in several emerging countries have been forced to completely shut down. That was the case in Russia during much of the worst of the global financial crisis, among others.

By taking a sector perspective across several different markets, he believes that traders will be able to cushion their exposure to such liquidity problems and diversify their portfolios in different ways. "The Emerging Global Shares ETFs are designed to give investors the ability to execute active investment management strategies in markets where the liquidity to trade is not always available," said Kang in a statement.

Well, it is not yet a done deal but to show what it means to be stuck between a rock and a hard place it would serve us well to have look at Hungary which, even among its CEE comrades, look comparatively battered and bruised. To make matters worse, Hungary received another blow to the kidneys as Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany announced on Saturday that he was resigning his position. On the face of it, it is difficult to blame the guy since with Hungary being the first economy in Eastern Europe to secure a loan from the IMF to the tune of 20 million euros the corresponding budgetary cuts demanded look almost cartoonishly unrealistic relative to the economic situation.

Even as he presided over a reduction of the budget deficit from 9.2 percent of GDP in 2006 to about 3.3 percent last year, Gyurcsany was criticized in February by some opposition parties and the central bank for his proposed 900 billion forint ($4.1 billion) tax shuffle to boost growth. Critics said more spending cuts were needed to stabilize the economy in the short run and boost growth in the long run.

“The government no longer had any room to maneuver,” Gyorgy Barcza, chief economist at KBC NV’s Hungarian unit, said yesterday. “Without new measures, the budget deficit would be more than the target.”Failure to continue austerity measures could result in a downgrade of the country’s credit rating, David Heslam, Director of Fitch Ratings’ sovereign team, said in a statement today. The agency rates Hungary’s debt BBB, the second-lowest investment grade, with a negative outlook.

The Socialist Party is less than half as popular as its biggest rival. Backing for the government started slipping when it introduced austerity measures to close a budget gap in 2006. The resulting economic decline was worsened by the global crisis, forcing the country to seek international aid. The party had 23 percent support last month, the lowest in 10 years, compared with 62 percent for the largest opposition party, Fidesz, pollster Median said on its Web site on March 18. Gyurcsany’s popularity fell to 18 percent, making him the most unpopular premier since communism. The poll of 1,200 people has a margin of error of 2 to 6 percentage points.

As Edward put it recently, it is difficult not to note a irrevocable pattern in the (unfortunate) countries subject to IMF intervention whereby they collapse under the yoke of the measures demanded in trade for the loan. Of course, we should not only shoot at the IMF since in the context of e.g. the EU one wonders the extent to which western Europe can just idly watch a country such as Hungary spiral into the abyss without extending some kind of bilateral help. Note in passing here that Gyurcsany's resignation marks the second case of government jitters in an IMF supported economy. The second would be Latvia where the government resigned recently.

As it could have been expected the market was none to happy about the PM's resignation which brings us to question of raising those rates. Consider consequently that the Forint which have already been pounded relative to the Euro completed a 2.6 percent drop to 308.62 against the euro (click on image for better viewing).

Consequently and following the Prime Minister's resignation the central bank was forced to move with comments that all tools would be deployed to avoid the Forint depreciation to spiral out of control. Now, I would not want to contradict myself here and let me very clear then; I think that a weak Forint is a fundamental part of whatever future Hungary may have but in the near term and with the rating agencies thoroughly marking the outlook for Hungary with the negative label it is a tightrope walk for policy makers not least because we still have the unresolved issue of translation risk whereby liabilities are denominated in foreign currency (mostly swiss francs though) and assets in Forints. Conclusively, it is difficult to see why, given the economic reality, the central bank would want to raise rates, but it is also difficult not to concur that they need to do something with respect to ensuring some kind of order vis-à-vis Hungary's stakeholders not to mention investors. Perhaps this duality more than anything shows us the almost impossible situation Hungary now finds itself in.

Raising the Stakes?

Meanwhile and moving across the pond for a minute it appears that US authorities have just raised the stakes in the dramatic jeux d'horrible that is the unfolding economic crisis. Thus and following the Fed's shock and awe treatment of the markets last week as Bernanke rolled out measures to buy treasuries (presumably) in the primary market we got the long awaited details in Timothy Geithner's plan on how to deal with those toxic assets and consequently how to restore confidence in markets so that we just might go back to normal whatever that is these days.

Quite naturally, the plan (see also here and here) which includes most notably a public-private partnership scheme designed to take care of about 1 trillion USD worth of toxic asset has been parsed by many of the most astute economic pundits. From the horses own mouth this is how it is described;

The Public-Private Investment Program will purchase real-estate related loans from banks and securities from the broader markets. Banks will have the ability to sell pools of loans to dedicated funds, and investors will compete to have the ability to participate in those funds and take advantage of the financing provided by the government.

The funds established under this program will have three essential design features. First, they will use government resources in the form of capital from the Treasury, and financing from the FDIC and Federal Reserve, to mobilize capital from private investors. Second, the Public-Private Investment Program will ensure that private-sector participants share the risks alongside the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer shares in the profits from these investments. These funds will be open to investors of all types, such as pension funds, so that a broad range of Americans can participate.

Third, private-sector purchasers will establish the value of the loans and securities purchased under the program, which will protect the government from overpaying for these assets.

The new Public-Private Investment Program will initially provide financing for $500 billion with the potential to expand up to $1 trillion over time, which is a substantial share of real-estate related assets originated before the recession that are now clogging our financial system. Over time, by providing a market for these assets that does not now exist, this program will help improve asset values, increase lending capacity by banks, and reduce uncertainty about the scale of losses on bank balance sheets. The ability to sell assets to this fund will make it easier for banks to raise private capital, which will accelerate their ability to replace the capital investments provided by the Treasury.

This program to address legacy loans and securities is part of an overall strategy to resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at least cost to the taxpayer. The Public-Private Investment Program is better for the taxpayer than having the government alone directly purchase the assets from banks that are still operating and assume a larger share of the losses. Our approach shares risk with the private sector, efficiently leverages taxpayer dollars, and deploys private-sector competition to determine market prices for currently illiquid assets. Simply hoping for banks to work these assets off over time risks prolonging the crisis in a repeat of the Japanese experience.

Macro Man offers nothing but a sigh, Paul Krugman is in despair, Calculated Risk also seems skeptical that this is the right approach and finally Yves Smith also chimes in with a "thumbs down". I tend to agree with the skeptics and even though I have not really studied the proposal in detail the principal problem for me is that the government is putting up money for assets of which some are surely worthless and others may be work significantly less than current book value. In this way, it does nothing to solve the underlying issue and the risk for the taxpayer seems substantial. What I do like though about the plan is that it explicitly seeks to create a market when there obviously is none and this may be an important first step towards restoring some kind certainty as to where this is going.

Ah well, perhaps I and the rest of the gang above are just party poopers. What is certain is that the markets liked it and in fact Macro Man may have hit the proverbial nail on the head when he recently, and once again, evoked March Madness (click on image for better viewing).

Of course, if there ever was something resembling a sucker rally it is this but so far things look as they are working. Also we cannot rule out that this initiative may just be what it takes to allow these assets to be marked to (a credible) market which would mean that we had taken one important step in moving forward. One thing which I do like by the activism in the US is that it is just that; activist which flies in the face of ostrich attitude prevailing on this side of the pond.

Rates and Stakes

So, what do Hungary and the US have in common here? Except being in the midst of their worst economic crisis of, arguably, all time not a whole lot I guess. However, they are both being forced to move into uncharted waters when it comes to fighting off the current mess in the global economy and her financial system. It will be very interesting to see whether raising rates as well as the stakes will bring forth the intended effects.