Markets move to Risk-Off

Bitcoin broke support at $64K, warning that financial markets are moving to risk-off . Traders and investors reduce their exposure to risk and focus on protecting their capital. Follow-through below $62K would confirm, warning of a sharp fall (in BTC) and a stock market correction.

Bitcoin

The 10-Year Treasury yield has climbed to 4.67%, confirming our target of 5.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yield

The Japanese Yen fell to 154 against the Dollar, increasing pressure on the Bank of Japan to loosen the cap on long-term JGB yields — to protect the Yen. The result of such a move would be an outflow of Japanese investors from the US Treasury market, increasing upward pressure on UST yields and downward pressure on the Dollar.

USDJPY

Fed Monetary Policy

From CNN:

The US economy’s enduring strength and a “lack of progress” on inflation means the central bank likely won’t cut interest rates at its upcoming policy meeting just two weeks away, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday.

“The recent data have clearly not given us greater confidence” that inflation is headed toward the central bank’s 2% goal, Powell said during a moderated discussion hosted by the Wilson Center. Instead, he said, there are indications “that it is likely to take longer than expected to achieve that confidence.”

Stocks

The S&P 500 broke support at 5100, warning of a correction. Lower Trend Index peaks reflect selling pressure. Our target is 4950.

S&P 500

The Equal-Weighted Index ($IQX) continued its downward path after breaking support at 6650, presenting a target of 6250.

S&P 500 Equal-Weighted Index

US Consumers

Real retail sales ticked up in March to remain on trend.

Real Retail Sales

Light vehicle sales also remain reasonably strong, at 15.5 million units (annualized) in March.

Light Vehicle Sales

Gold & the Dollar

The Dollar Index climbed above 106, strengthened by safe haven demand and the appeal of higher long-term yields. Our target is the October 2023 high at 107.

Dollar Index

Gold is again testing resistance at our target of $2400 per ounce, currently at $2383. The Shanghai Gold Exchange continues to display a premium on its international gold contract (iAu99.99) at 558.3 Yuan which translates to $2399 per Troy ounce (31.10348 grams). The domestic contract trades at an even higher price of 569 per gram but is subject to capital controls. The price premium should ensure a constant inflow of physical gold from other exchanges to China for as long it is maintained.

Spot Gold

Silver retraced from resistance at $29 per ounce and is testing support at $28. The lower Trend Index peak warns of selling pressure. Breach of $28 would warn of a correction to $26. Breakout above $29 is less likely in the short-term but would signal a fresh advance, with a medium-term target of $34.

Spot Silver

Crude & Commodities

Brent crude is in a narrow consolidation (pennant) at $90 per barrel. Continuation is likely and would test resistance at $96 per barrel.
Brent Crude

Nymex crude has retraced to test short-term support at $85 per barrel. Respect is likely and would indicate an advance to our target at $90.
WTI Light Crude

Conclusion

Geopolitical risk dominates, with an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iran expected before the end of the month.

Rising crude oil prices are likely to increase inflationary pressure and the yield on long-term Treasuries, with the 10-year yield expected to test 5.0%.

Safe haven demand from investors is concentrated on Gold, with bond prices falling and stocks warning of a correction. We expect a short retracement to test support levels but respect is likely and would signal another advance.

Bitcoin is diverging from Gold as investors grow more risk averse. Breach of support at $62K would confirm a correction, with support expected at $52K.

Acknowledgements



Iran attacks Israel

Markets are overshadowed by news that Iran directly attacked Israel in retaliation for the bombing of its embassy in Damascus which killed two high-ranking Iranian generals.

Iran

This is a significant escalation in Iran’s on-going proxy war against Israel.

Russia and its allies are emboldened by the US failure to support Ukraine and are stepping up their attacks on Western allies.

Iran

Mick Ryan (retired Australian Maj. General) writes:

…What is Iran’s ultimate goal here and its strategy to achieve it? This is a major shift in the way the Iranians have attacked Israel for years. Proxy forces are normally Iran’s preference in order to keep it at arm’s length from a potential Israeli response. Why has it decided on such a drastic course change in its strategy to confront Israel?

He lays out four options for retaliation — ranging from no direct response to a massive hammer blow to deter a repeat — and concludes:

All of these are possible in the hours and days ahead. All have advantages, as well as considerable disadvantages, for the Israelis. But one thing is certain, the concept of ‘re-establishing deterrence’ against Iran will be an important guiding idea.

And, it is uncertain whether the Iranians are really prepared for what they may have unleashed against their country and the wider region.

Flight to Safety

Given the high level of uncertainty, we can expect a significant flight to safe haven assets. Stocks are expected to weaken, with the S&P 500 breaching support at 5100 to signal a secondary correction.

S&P 500

The S&P 500 Equal-Weighted Index ($IQX) has already warned of a market move to risk-off after breaching support at 6650. A test of support at 6400 is likely.

S&P 500 Equal-Weighted Index ($IQX)

The Russelll 2000 Small Caps ETF (IWM) has similarly breached support at 200, warning of a correction to 190.

Russelll 2000 Small Caps ETF (IWM)

Brent crude is expected to test resistance at $96 per barrel.

Brent Crude

10-Year Treasury yields are already retracing and headed for a test of new support at 4.35%. Respect is likely, however, and would confirm an advance to test resistance at 5.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yield

The Dollar Index may not follow 10-year Treasury yields, with safe haven demand fueling a test of 107.

Dollar Index

Gold saw significant profit-taking on Friday after reaching our target of $2400 per ounce earlier in the day. Retracement is likely to respect support at $2300, followed by a strong advance fueled by safe-haven demand.

Spot Gold

The international contract on the Shanghai Gold Exchange (iAu99.99) is trading at 562 Yuan/gram. This equates to a USD price of $2415 per troy ounce — a sizable premium over Friday’s close at $2344.

Silver has retraced to test support at $28 per ounce. Respect is likely, signaling a test of resistance at $29 per ounce. Breakout above $29 would offer a long-term target of $36 per ounce.

Spot Silver

Bitcoin is consolidating below resistance at $72K. Breakout is likely and would offer a target of $92K, while reversal below support at $64K would warn of a correction to test $52K.

Bitcoin

Conclusion

Escalation in the Iran-Israel conflict is likely to drive crude oil prices to new highs as geopolitical risk rises. Inflationary pressures are expected to climb as a result, reducing the possibility of Fed rate cuts this year.

Other geopolitical factors could intervene, including the Saudis increasing production to hold crude oil prices below $100 per barrel. Above $100 is considered unsustainable by many producers and believed to lead to sharp falls in demand as the global economy contracts in response.

Financial markets, stocks and precious metals are likely to be dominated by safe-haven demand in the weeks ahead. A shift from small caps — and even the broad S&P 500 to the largest “magnificent seven” tech stocks — is expected as investors grow increasingly risk averse. Demand for Gold & Silver is expected to rise. The Dollar is likely to strengthen, along with short-/medium-term Treasuries. But long-term yields are unclear because of conflicting inflation/safe-haven pressures.

Acknowledgements

 

Thoughts on Israel

We express our sympathy for the people of Israel who have suffered a brutal attack from HAMAS and its backers.

An act of such barbarity is bound to evoke a response and lead to further escalation of violence in the region. But that seems to be the intention.

Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel (1995-1997 and 2000-2001) and special envoy under President Obama for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (2013-2014), was asked why this occurred now, after progress seemed to be made on an Israel-Palestine settlement:

I think you have to consider the context at this moment. The Arab world is coming to terms with Israel. Saudi Arabia is talking about normalizing relations with Israel. As part of that potential deal, the United States is pressing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority—Hamas’s enemy. So this was an opportunity for Hamas and its Iranian backers to disrupt the whole process, which I think in retrospect was deeply threatening to both of them. I don’t think that Hamas follows dictation from Iran, but I do think they act in coordination, and they had a common interest in disrupting the progress that was underway and that was gaining a lot of support among Arab populations. The idea was to embarrass those Arab leaders who have made peace with Israel, or who might do so, and to prove that Hamas and Iran are the ones who are able to inflict military defeat on Israel.

There are talks going on regarding a peace deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and conversations about U.S. security guarantees for Saudi Arabia. In all likelihood, a primary motivation for Hamas and Iran was a desire to disrupt that deal, because it threatened to isolate them. And this was a very good way to destroy its prospects, at least in the near term. Once the Palestinian issue returns to front and center, and Arabs around the Middle East are watching American weapons in Israeli hands killing large numbers of Palestinians, that will ignite a very strong reaction….

….And in terms of escalation, the party to watch most closely is Hezbollah. If the Palestinian death toll rises, Hezbollah will be tempted to join the fray. They have 150,000 rockets they can rain down on Israel’s main cities, and that will lead to an all-out war not just in Gaza but in Lebanon, too. And everybody would get dragged in that situation. (Foreign Affairs)

Conclusion

The aim of the attack was to provoke a violent retaliation which would disrupt an Arab-Israeli peace accord.
Starting another war would play into the perpetrator’s hands.
Netanyahu prides himself on being cautious. Now is the time to show restraint, bolster Israel’s defenses and continue to pursue peace in the region — which would sideline HAMAS and its Iranian backers.

Afghanistan: The worst kind of cowardice

I would have expected the former Swedish prime minister to have a better appreciation of the challenges political leaders face when confronted with a choice like Afghanistan:

Carl Bildt

Colin Twiggs

The media focuses on the 12,000 casualties and more than $1 trillion spent over the past 20 years. A complete waste. Especially when you consider the end result. But the alternative is even worse: to continue spending good money after bad, wasting more lives unnecessarily in the process. Your first duty as a leader is to avoid another young soldier returning home with his/her legs blown off or with brain trauma from an IED.

Sacrifice is necessary when there is a clear and attainable end goal in mind. But the worst kind of sacrifice is the kind politicians make because they don’t want to take a hit in the ratings. That isn’t courage, it’s cowardice.

A long, long time ago I served in a counterinsurgency operation where one of my fellow 18-year olds had his legs blown off above the knee when his horse stepped on a landmine. He died several years later. I often think of him in times like this because the conflict has long since been forgotten, the outcome was inevitable and time has marched on.

No one has the right to ask young men and women to serve in those kind of circumstances. Not you, not me, nor Joe Biden.

Echoes of the Past: Syria, Chemical Weapons, and Civilian Targeting

Everyone should read this as a reminder of the brutality that states may employ for political ends, whether Ethiopia (1935), Chechnya (1995), Iraq (1998) or Syria (2017). Chemical weapons such as sarin or mustard gas leave horrific injuries, but any deliberate targeting of civilians — such as bombing of hospitals and residential neighborhoods — should IMO be treated as a war crime.

Luke O’Brien is a U.S. Army officer assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground and is currently a Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Graduate Fellow at National Defense University:

…..Perhaps the most notorious example of this from recent memory, however, was the Iraqi chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, as part of the Anfal Campaign at the end of the Iran-Iraq War. This attack struck the small Kurdish village with both conventional and chemical bombs, including sarin, just as Assad’s forces would nearly 30 years later. The first attacks used normal high-explosive bombs, which both drove civilians into basement shelters as well as broke open the villages windows and doors. These initials attacks were then followed up with chemical munitions, which quickly filled the basement shelters and killed their occupants.

Such brutality was intentional. The attacks were intended to break the back of the Kurdish peshmerga militia by depopulating its support. Commenting on the matter at the time, Iraqi Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid bragged that he would “kill [all the Kurds] with chemical weapons.” The chemical bombardment of Halabja had its desired effect, with a stream of surviving civilians abandoning the town and fleeing to nearby Iran. This use of chemical weapons, moreover, had another added benefit: driving away civilians and insurgents who had become numb to the effects of conventional weapons…..

Read more at: Echoes of the Past: Syria, Chemical Weapons, and Civilian Targeting

No Plan? No Strategy? No Problem! Syria and Trump’s Russia Policy

Michael Kofman is an Analyst at CNA Corporation and a Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute:

….Past American attempts at coercive diplomacy with Russia have typically lacked actual coercion, and a theory of how to gain leverage over Moscow. It will be rather startling if 59 cruise missiles turn out to be the answer to this problem. Thankfully, the previous administration tested a lot of theories that didn’t work, from empty threats at the United Nations, to disproven assumptions on what influences Russian behavior, to narratives about quagmires. It would be best for Trump’s White House not to set us on this journey, mounted on that very same broken wheel (or one just as broken in a different way).

In a contest of wills, Trump needs a plan to establish coercive credibility rather than hoping to scare the Russians with expensive fireworks. The number one mistake previous administrations made with Moscow is that, rather than deal with the Russia that is, they all imagined a Russia that suited them more, and then tried to have relations with that imaginary country.

The reality is, this administration’s only current leverage with Russia is the notion inside the Kremlin that a cooperative agenda with the United States is still possible. That’s a dubious proposition which offers the U.S. some advantages. Russia still hopes that there are carrots the United States might offer, or at the least it could get respite in the current confrontation and consolidate gains. If the administration is able to drag out this perception, rather than demonstrating that the White House is rapidly reverting to classical archetypes that Moscow anticipates, then there is an opportunity to obtain concessions.

Given that a cooperative agenda between the United States and Russia is well-nigh impossible, where does that leave us?

Source: No Plan? No Strategy? No Problem! Syria and Why Trump’s Russia Policy Is Off to a Rough Start

How to survive the next four years

Donald Trump

We are entering a time of uncertainty.

Donald Trump started his presidency with a continuation of the confrontational approach that he exhibited throughout his campaign, with scant regard to unifying the country and governing from the middle. Instead he has signed off on two controversial oil pipelines that, while they would create jobs, have met fierce opposition and are likely to polarize the nation even further.

Subtlety is not Trump’s strong point. Expect a far more abrasive style than the Obama years.

Trump also signed off on constructing a wall along the border with Mexico. Again, this will create jobs and slow illegal immigration — two of his key campaign promises — while harming relations with the Southern neighbor.

Another key target is the trade deficit. The US has not run a trade surplus since 1975. Expect major revision of current trade agreements like NAFTA, which could further damage relations with Mexico, and a slew of actions against trading partners such as China and Japan who have used their foreign reserves in the past to maintain a trade surplus with the US. Floating exchange rates are meant to balance the flow of imports and exports on current account, minimizing trade surpluses/deficits over time. But this can be subverted by accumulating excessive foreign reserves to suppress appreciation of your home currency. Retaliation to US punitive actions is likely and could harm international trade if not carefully managed.

Apart from wars, Trump and chief strategist Steve Bannon also seem intent on provoking a war with the media, baiting the press in a recent New York Times interview:

Bannon delivered a broadside at the press…. saying, “The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.” Bannon also said, “I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States…..”

Trump and Bannon’s strategy may be to provoke retaliation by the media. One-sided reporting would discredit the press as an objective source of criticism of the new presidency.

On top of the Trump turmoil in the US, we have Brexit which threatens to disrupt trade between the UK and European Union. If not managed carefully, this could lead to copycat actions from other EU member states.

Increasingly aggressive steps by China and Russia are another destabilizing factor — with the two nations asserting their global power against weaker neighbors. Iran is another offender, attempting to establish a crescent of influence in the Middle East against fierce opposition by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni partners. Also, North Korea is expanding its nuclear arsenal.

We live in dangerous times.

But these may also be times of opportunity. Trump has made some solid appointments to his team who could exert a positive influence on the global outlook. And confrontation may resolve some long-festering sores on both the economic and geo-political fronts.

How are we to know? Where can we get an unbiased view of economic prospects if confrontation is high, uncertainty a given — the new President issuing random tweets in the night as the mood takes him — and a distracted media?

There are two reliable sources of information: prices and earnings. Stock prices reflect market sentiment, the waves of human emotion that dominate short- and medium-term market behavior. And earnings will either confirm or refute market sentiment in the longer term.

As Benjamin Graham wrote:

“In the short term the stock market behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine”.

In the short-term, stock prices may deviate from true value as future earnings and growth prospects are often unclear. But prices will adjust closer to true value as more information becomes available and views of earnings and prospects narrow over time.

We are bound to experience periods of intense volatility over the next four years as hopes and fears rise and fall. These periods represent both a threat and an opportunity. A threat if you have invested on hopes and expectations rather than on solid performance. And an opportunity if intense volatility causes prices to fall below true value.

It will pay to keep a close watch on technical signals on the major indexes. As well as earnings growth in relation to index performance.

Also, keep a close eye on long-term indicators of market risk such as the Treasury yield curve and corporate bond spreads. These often forewarn of coming reactions and will be reviewed on a regular basis in future newsletters.

How to Counter the Putin Playbook | The New York Times

Michael A. McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, both at Stanford, served as United States ambassador to the Russian Federation from 2012 to 2014:

…We will not find security in isolationism. No missile defense shield, cybersecurity program, tariff or border wall can protect us if we disengage. Menacing autocracies, illiberal ideas, and antidemocratic and terrorist movements will not just leave us alone or wither away. The threats will grow and eventually endanger our peace, as we saw in Europe and Japan in the 1930s, and Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Conversely, the growth of democracy around the world serves American interests. Democracies do not threaten us; autocracies do. Democratic allies also vote with us at the United Nations, go to war with us, support international treaties and norms, and stand with us against tyranny.

So we must push back, in new ways. Just as the Kremlin has become more sophisticated at exporting its ideas and supporting its friends, so must we.

We should think of advancing democratic ideas abroad primarily as an educational project, almost never as a military campaign. Universities, books and websites are the best tools, not the 82nd Airborne. The United States can expand resources for learning about democracy……

I agree with the sentiment but not the execution. Win friends by promoting education and building infrastructure abroad. These have practical, tangible benefits to citizens of developing nations. Democracy can come later. In many parts of the world it is as foreign a concept as gay marriage.

Source: How to Counter the Putin Playbook – The New York Times

Don’t Blame Sykes-Picot for the Middle East’s Mess | Foreign Policy

By Steven A. Cook, Amr T. Leheta:

The weaknesses and contradictions of authoritarian regimes are at the heart of the Middle East’s ongoing tribulations. Even the rampant ethnic and religious sectarianism is a result of this authoritarianism, which has come to define the Middle East’s state system far more than the Sykes-Picot agreement ever did.

The region’s “unnatural” borders did not lead to the Middle East’s ethnic and religious divisions. The ones to blame are the cynical political leaders who foster those divisions in hopes of maintaining their rule. In Iraq, for instance, Saddam Hussein built a patronage system through his ruling Baath Party that empowered a state governed largely by Sunnis at the expense of Shiites and Kurds. Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and his father before him, also ruled by building a network of supporters and affiliates whereby members of his Alawite sect enjoyed a privileged space in the inner circle. The Wahhabi worldview of Saudi Arabia’s leaders strongly encourages a sectarian interpretation of the country’s struggle with Iran for regional hegemony. The same is true for the ideologies of the various Salafi-jihadi groups battling for supremacy in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen…..

Source: Don’t Blame Sykes-Picot for the Middle East’s Mess | Foreign Policy