Minimize

Welcome!

Sorry to post the obvious, but just in case some of you did not see this.

Big Al
February 5, 2016

Citi: World economy seems trapped in ‘death spiral’

The global economy seems trapped in a “death spiral” that could lead to further weakness in oil prices, recession and a serious equity bear market, Citi strategists have warned.

Some analysts — including those at Citi — have turned bearish on the world economy this year, following an equity rout in January and weaker economic data out of China and the U.S.

“The world appears to be trapped in a circular reference death spiral,” Citi strategists led by Jonathan Stubbs said in a report on Thursday.

“Stronger U.S. dollar, weaker oil/commodity prices, weaker world trade/petrodollar liquidity, weaker EM (and global growth)… and repeat. Ad infinitum, this would lead to Oilmageddon, a ‘significant and synchronized’ global recession and a proper modern-day equity bear market.”

Stubbs said that macro strategists at Citi forecast that the dollar would weaken in 2016 and that oil prices were likely bottoming, potentially providing some light at the end of the tunnel.

“The death spiral is in nobody’s interest. Rational behavior, most likely, will prevail,” he said in the report.

Crude oil prices have tumbled by around 70 percent since the middle of 2014, during which time the U.S. dollar has risen by around 20 percent against a basket of currencies. 

Has OPEC lost its claws?

Yes, they can’t reach consensus
No, they are keeping their powder dry
Yes and no, it’s all about Saudi Arabia
VOTE

Vote to see results

The world economy grew by 3.1 percent in 2015 and is projected to accelerate to expand by 3.4 percent in 2016 and 3.6 percent in 2017, according to the International Monetary Fund. The forecast reflects expectations of gradual improvement in countries currently in economic distress, notably Brazil, Russia and some in the Middle East.

By contrast, Citi forecasts the world economy will grow by only 2.7 percent in 2016 having cut its outlook last month.

Overall, advanced economies are mostly making a modest recovery, while many emerging market and developing economies are under strain from the rebalancing of the Chinese economy, lower commodity prices and capital outflows.

Stubbs added that policymakers would likely attempt to “regain credibility” in the coming weeks and months.

“This is fundamental to avoiding a proper/full global recession and dangerous disorder across financial markets. The stakes are high, perhaps higher than they have ever been in the post-World War II era,” he said.

Just 151,000 new jobs were created in January in the U.S., in the latest sign that the world’s biggest economy is slowing. Economists are concerned about an industrial or manufacturing recession in the country, following some warnings from companies in earnings seasons and recent weak manufacturing activity and durable goods orders data.

However, some analysts say markets are overegging the prospect of a global slump.

“Many markets are now pricing in a significant probability of recession and when we talk about recession, we’re talking particularly about a U.S. recession. Do you think that is likely or not? To me, the odds are too high; the market is pricing too high a probability,” Myles Bradshaw, the head of global aggregate fixed income at Amundi, told CNBC this week.

Discussion
6 Comments
    CFS
    Feb 05, 2016 05:23 PM

    the problem is a systemic one.

    Money supply is increased by increasing debt.

    The problem with increasing debt, borrowing from future production, to increase production today, is that eventually all borrowers, be they individuals or corporations (or even countries)run out of the ability to pay interest on the debt.

    The Keynesian paradox)

    We have passed that borrowing limit and countries are using direct monetization to continue the increase in money supply. However, in using direct monetization and financial regression, countries have not yet managed to increase inflation, but rather have distorted economies and investments.

    CFS
    Feb 05, 2016 05:39 PM

    Further. In order to increase trade, production, etc…. it is imperative to increase money supply.
    The world has not yet found a way to do this without distorting markets.

    Further QE will not work as intended. Past history clearly demonstrates that fact.
    Even if given out in the form of helicopter money such a transitory stimulant could never have any permanent effect.
    The fatal flaw, as close as I can figure out, was in choosing a fixed instead of a floating price for gold at Bretton Woods.

    Given the mindset of the US economics experts, I believe that they will try a further QE type stimulation, which will fail, no matter how it is carried out.
    I believe the Chinese and Russia are preparing for a monetary collapse of the West by cornering as much gold as they can.

    I believe I understand the only long term solution to the world monetary problem, but I also feel that it is not politically acceptable to the western world, and thus eventually we are destined to a collapse of the system sooner or later.

    CFS
    Feb 05, 2016 05:21 PM

    My comment to precious metal investors…….

    This is apoint in time when you should more heavily weight (reserves + potential for increasing reserves) divided by market cap.
    i.e. Higher (oz/$ of market cap) always does better on average in a bull market.

    Providing you believe Gary Savage is correct in saying we are now in a bull market for precious metals.

      LPG
      Feb 05, 2016 05:54 PM

      I think it’s not market cap one should be using in your formula but EV instead.
      My 2cts.
      LPG

    CFS
    Feb 05, 2016 05:00 PM

    LPG, why do you say that?

    Perhaps I misunderstand the abbreviation EV = Enterprise value?
    (Obviously not electron volt)

      LPG
      Feb 06, 2016 06:23 PM

      CFS,

      EV indeed, as it reflects the capital structure.

      Market Cap/Oz is pretty much meaningless on its own.
      By doing Mket Cap/Oz, you’re not looking at how much you are paying for the company as you ignore part of its capital structure.

      Take the simple example of 3 companies:
      3 companies w. EXACTLY the same amount of Oz in reserve, and EXACTLY the same market cap.
      Comp A has ZERO net debt
      Comp B has a net cash position
      Comp C has a net debt position.
      Which one would you rather own ?

      According to your criteria of Mket Cap/Oz, an investor should be indifferent to which one he picks as the ratio Mket Cap/Oz is the same for all 3. But it doesn’t seem to make sense, right ?

      => My 2 cts: EV/Oz….

      Best,

      LPG