Canada’s TSX 60 Index threatens to complete a large head and shoulders reversal with a break below support at 640. The first shoulder is in April 2010 and the second in March 2012. The recent iceberg on 63-day Twiggs Momentum warns of a primary down-trend. Failure of support would offer an immediate target of 560* and a long-term target of 460*.
* Target calculation: 640 – ( 720 – 640 ) = 560; 640 – ( 820 – 640 ) = 460
This lesson introduces the macroeconomic concept of Aggregate demand.
The Aussie Dollar rallied strongly off support at $0.96 against the greenback, on the back of strong GDP numbers. Expect a test of the declining trendline around $1.02. A peak below zero on 63-day Twiggs Momentum, however, would warn of a strong primary down-trend.
Australian Real GDP may have grown by 1.3 percent for the first quarter, but as Stephen Koukoulas points out: Nominal GDP (before adjustment for inflation) only grew by 0.3 percent. The cause of the Real GDP surge is a sharp fall in the GDP price deflator, used to adjust for inflation. Falling prices may be welcomed by the consumer but they warn of a deflationary contraction — as in 2008/9 when nominal GDP fell by 5.0 percent.
In the long-term, the Australian Dollar normally follows commodity prices. At present the CRB Commodities Index is falling sharply and the Aussie is likely to follow.
The Euro retraced to test resistance at the former primary support level of $1.26. The peak that respected the zero line on 63-Day Twiggs Momentum warns of a strong primary down-trend. Respect of resistance would strengthen the signal, indicating a test of the 2010 low at $1.20.
Pound Sterling is correcting after strong appreciation against the Euro. Expect a test of the rising trendline around €1.21/€1.22. Penetration would warn of weakness, but respect and/or a 63-Day Twiggs Momentum trough above zero would indicate a healthy primary up-trend.
The US Dollar is in a primary up-trend, the Dollar Index having broken resistance between 81 and 82. Retracement is likely to test the new support level; respect of 81 would confirm a healthy up-trend. Respect of the zero line by 63-day Twiggs Money Flow would likewise strengthen the signal.
* Target calculation: 82 + ( 82 – 78 ) = 86
Spot gold is also testing a new support level — this time on the daily chart — after breaking resistance at $1600/ounce. Penetration of the declining trendline suggests that the down-trend is weakening, but 63-day Twiggs Momentum remains firmly below zero. Follow-through above $1640 would strengthen the bull signal — as would recovery of Momentum above zero — but failure of $1600 would re-test $1540.
* Target calculation: 1550 – ( 1800 – 1550 ) = 1300
Other commodities have reacted negatively to the stronger dollar, suggesting that gold will continue its downward path. Copper is in a clear down-trend, headed for a test of the 2011 low at 6800.
Brent crude broke its mid-2011 low at $100/barrel, offering a long-term target of $75*.
* Target calculation: 100 – ( 125 – 100 ) = 75
Nymex WTI Light Crude is similarly headed for a test of long-term support at $75/barrel.
CRB Commodities Index is similarly headed for a test of support at 250. The peak below zero on 63-day Twiggs Momentum warns of a strong primary down-trend. First, expect retracement to test resistance at 295; respect would confirm the down-trend.
* Target calculation: 290 – ( 330 – 290 ) = 250
Some sweeping generalizations from Stiglitz and Conard denial that the Fed was architect of the 2007/2008 asset bubble but some interesting insights from both parties.
Edward Conard, a former managing director at Bain Capital LLC, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, talk about the U.S. economy and income inequality. They speak with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.”
SMSF Education is a free online education resource for SMSF trustees and their advisers.
There are two types of contributions that can be made to superannuation. These are known as Concessional (pre-tax) contributions and Non-Concessional (post-tax) contributions. There are contribution caps that determine the maximum amount that can be contributed in any one year for each type of contribution.
A Concessional contribution is a contribution made to superannuation where a tax deduction has been claimed. This includes contributions such as the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC), salary sacrifice and personal deductible contributions. Concessional contributions incur contributions tax of 15% upon entering superannuation. From 1 July 2012, this contributions tax increases to 30% on Concessional contributions for individuals with an income greater than $300,000.
The maximum Concessional contribution that can be made into the account of a superannuation member is dependant on their age. Currently, a member under the age of 50 is able to have contributions of up to $25,000 made to their account as a Concessional contribution in any one year. For those over age 50, the cap is $50,000. However, as of 1 July 2012, the Concessional contribution cap will be a universal $25,000 for all members regardless of age. In saying this, the Government has announced that members over age 50 will be able to have up to $50,000 (potentially $55,000 due to indexation) contributed to their accounts as a Concessional contribution from 1 July 2014 if their superannuation member balance is below $500,000.
A ‘non-concessional’ contribution is a contribution made to superannuation with after-tax dollars – where income tax has already been paid. No tax is incurred on this type of contribution upon entering superannuation.
The maximum Non-Concessional contribution that can be made in any one year is $150,000. However, members under the age of 65 have the ability to ‘bring forward’ two years’ worth of the Non-Concessional cap. This means that up to $450,000 may be contributed in any one year, with no further Non-Concessional contributions being made for the following two years. The ‘bring forward’ rule is triggered in a financial year if more than $150,000 is contributed as a Non-Concessional contribution.
Where a member receives Concessional contributions in excess of their relevant cap, the excess amount is subject to excess contributions tax of 31.5% and the amount in excess will then count towards their Non-Concessional cap.
For various reasons, many individuals have been incurring excess contributions tax as a result of circumstances out of their control. From the 2012 financial year, new measures in place provide certain individuals with the ability to have excess contributions refunded to them and taxed at their marginal tax rate, so as not to incur excess contributions tax. However, this is only available in limited circumstances where the excess contributions equal less than $10,000 and there are no excess contributions for an earlier financial year (excluding years prior to 2012). This option for a refund is only available once for each individual’s lifetime. It is not available in the years subsequent to a refund being claimed.
In cases where the Non-Concessional contributions cap is exceeded, excess contributions tax of 46.5% is incurred. This is after income tax has already been paid on the amount contributed.
There are some instances where 93% in tax on contributions could be payable. This occurs when the Non-Concessional contribution cap has been reached and a Concessional contribution is made, which causes the Concessional contribution cap to be exceeded. In this case, the concessional contribution will incur contributions tax of 15% and then excess contributions tax of 31.5% for exceeding the Concessional contribution cap. Because the contribution has exceeded the Concessional cap, it will count towards the Non-Concessional cap. However, because the Non-Concessional cap had already been reached, excess contributions tax of 46.5% will be payable for exceeding the Non-Concessional cap – totalling 93% in excess contributions tax.
Contribution caps for relevant years (excluding indexation):
Ideally, all contributions should be made to your superannuation account a couple of weeks prior to the end of the financial year. The end of the tax year is a hectic time for superannuation funds. By getting your contributions in early, it should ensure that any delays in transaction or processing time will not affect your ability to claim a tax deduction in the current financial year.
Warrick Hanley
For more information, please go to www.smsfeducation.com.au
Austerity decimated Asian economies during their 1997/98 financial crisis and similar measures have failed to rescue the PIIGS in Europe 2012. David Cameron’s austerity measures have also not saved the UK from falling back into recession. So why is Wayne Swan in Australia so proud of his balanced budget? And why does Barack Obama threaten the wealthy with increased taxes while the GOP advocate spending cuts in order to reduce the US deficit? Are we condemned to follow Europe into a deflationary spiral?
First, let’s examine the causes of the current financial crisis.
Government deficits have been around for centuries. States would borrow in order to finance wars but were then left with the problem of repayment. Countries frequently defaulted, but this created difficulties in accessing further finance; so governments resorted to debasing their currencies. Initially they substituted coins with a lower metal content for the original issue. Then introduction of fiat currencies — with no right of conversion to an underlying gold/silver standard — made debasement a lot easier. Issuing more paper currency simply reduced the value of each note in circulation. Advent of the digital age made debasement still easier, with transfer of balances between electronic accounts largely replacing paper money. Fiscal deficits, previously confined to wars, became regular government policy; employed as a stealth tax and redistributed in the form of welfare benefits to large voting blocks.
Along with fiscal deficits came easy monetary policy — also known as debt expansion. Lower interest rates fueled greater demand for debt, which bankers, with assistance from the central bank, were only too willing to accommodate. I will not go into a lengthy exposition of how banks create money, but banks expand their balance sheets by lending money they do not have, confident in the knowledge that recipients will deposit the proceeds back in the banking system — which is then used to fund the original loan. Expanding bank balance sheets inject new money into the system, debasing the currency as effectively as if they were running a printing press in the basement.
The combination of rising prices and low interest rates is a heady mix investors cannot resist, leading to speculative bubbles in real estate or stocks. So why do governments encourage debt expansion? Because (A) it creates a temporary high — a false sense of well-being before inflation takes hold; and (B) it debases the currency, inflating tax revenues while reducing the real value of government debt.
Continuous government deficits and debt expansion via the financial sector have brought us to the edge of the precipice. The problem is: finding a way back — none of the solutions seem to work.
Slashing government spending, cutting back on investment programs, and raising taxes in order to reduce the fiscal deficit may appear a logical response to the crisis. Reversing policies that caused the problem will reduce their eventual impact, but you have to do that before the financial crisis — not after. With bank credit contracting and aggregate demand shrinking, it is too late to throw the engine into reverse — you are already going backwards. The economy is already slowing. Rather than reducing harmful side-effects, austerity applied at the wrong time will simply amplify them.
We are repeating the mistakes of the 1997/98 Asian crisis. Joseph Stiglitz, at the time chief economist at the World Bank, warned the IMF of the perils of austerity measures imposed on recipients of IMF support. He was politely ignored. By July 1998, 13 months after the start of the crisis, GNP had fallen by 83 percent in Indonesia and between 30 and 40 percent in other recipients of IMF “assistance”. Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and the Phillipines reduced government deficits, allowed insolvent banks to fail, and raised interest rates in response to IMF demands. Currency devaluations, waves of bankruptcies, real estate busts, collapse of entire industries and soaring unemployment followed — leading to social unrest. Contracting bank lending without compensatory fiscal deficits led to a deflationary spiral, while raising interest rates failed to protect currencies from devaluation.
The same failed policies are being pursued today, simply because continuing fiscal deficits and ballooning public debt are a frightening alternative.
At some point political leaders are going to realize the futility of further austerity measures and resort to the hair of the dog that bit them. Bond markets are likely to resist further increases in public debt and deficits would have to be funded directly or indirectly by the central bank/Federal Reserve. Inflation would rise. Effectively the government is printing fresh new dollar bills with nothing to back them.
The short-term payoff would be fourfold. Rising inflation increases tax revenues while at the same time decreasing the value of public debt in real terms. Real estate values rise, restoring many underwater mortgages to solvency, and rescuing banks threatened by falling house prices. Finally, inflation would discourage currency manipulation. Asian exporters who keep their currencies at artificially low values, by purchasing $trillions of US treasuries to offset the current account imbalance, will suffer a capital loss on their investments.
The long-term costs — inflation, speculative bubbles and financial crises — are likely to be out-weighed by the short-term benefits when it comes to counting votes. Even rising national debt would to some extent be offset by rising nominal GDP, stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio. And if deficits are used to fund productive infrastructure, rather than squandered on public fountains and bridges-to-nowhere, that will further enhance GDP growth while ensuring that the state has real assets to show for the debt incurred.
Faced with the failure of austerity measures, governments are likely to abandon them and resort to the printing press — fiscal deficits and quantitative easing. It is more a case of “when” rather than “if”. Successful traders/investors will need to allow for this in their strategies, timing their purchases to take advantage of the shift.
“HFTs appear to assist in decreasing excessive price volatility,” [Professor Alex Frino, CEO of Capital Markets Co-operative Research Centre (CMCRC) and Professor of Finance at the University of Sydney Business School] said. “This is partly due to the way HFT algorithms identify trading opportunities – they’re built to recognise when prices are abnormally high or low, and respond in a way that naturally pushes prices back towards the middle.”
via Securities Technology Monitor: Dark Trading Bad, HFT Good.
Mao Ye, Chen Yao and Jiading Gai of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that “exogeneous technology shocks that increase the speed of trading from microseconds to nanoseconds dramatically increase” order cancellation rates and found “evidence consistent with quote stuffing.”
“As speed is of value to a trader, it is almost equally valuable to slow his competitors down,” the researchers said in their paper The Externality of High Frequency Trading.
via Securities Technology Monitor – Quote Stuffing Aims to Slow Rivals.
