Der USA Bären-Thread

* Durable goods orders drop 1.4 percent in February

* Core capital goods orders fall 1.4 percent

* January core capital goods orders revised to show decline

* Core capital goods shipments up; January data revised down
.....
Shipments of core capital goods, which are used to calculate equipment spending in the government's gross domestic product measurement, rose 0.2 percent last month after slipping by a revised 0.4 percent in January. They were previously reported to have gained 0.1 percent in January.

That downward revision, together with a modest rise in inventories, prompted JPMorgan to slash its first-quarter growth estimate by half a percentage point to a 1.5 percent annual rate. Morgan Stanley cut its Q1 GDP forecast to a 0.9 percent rate from 1.2 percent.The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank's model forecasts a growth pace of only 0.3 percent for this quarter. The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent rate in the fourth quarter.
.....

finance.yahoo.com/news/...usiness-spending-data-132005025.html

www.economist.com/news/leaders/...e-bank-bridge-not-far-enough

AMERICA says it welcomes China’s ascent to great-power status, so long as the Chinese respect international norms and play a proper part in the multilateral system. China suspects that, in practice, America tries to hem it in whenever it does anything on the world stage. In the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), America seems to be confirming China’s darkest fears: it has adopted a policy of containment that is wrong in principle and has failed in practice.

Flush with the world’s largest foreign-exchange reserves, China plans a new bank to help match Asia’s vast savings with its even vaster need for new bridges, roads and other necessities of development. America dislikes the idea because it thinks the bank will not abide by high standards of creditworthiness and transparency; it also fears the institution will be a vehicle for Chinese influence. Though the Americans say they have not lobbied against the bank, they have put pressure on allies not to join it. When Britain became the first country outside Asia to apply for membership, an American official harrumphed about its trend towards “constant accommodation” of China. That admonition did not stop Germany, France and Italy declaring this week that they too wanted to be founding members. Others may follow.......


www.economist.com/news/asia/...rican-allies-infrastructure-gap
....This month first Britain and then France, Germany and Italy said they hoped to join the bank as founding shareholders.China said other European countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland are thinking of joining the queue. Yet America has been sceptical about the AIIB. Its officials claim they have not “lobbied against” it, but merely stressed how important it is that it abide by international standards of transparency, creditworthiness, environmental sustainability, and so on.

America’s reservations were certainly taken by officials in the region, however, as admonitions to steer clear of the AIIB. They were enough, at first, to discourage some of its closest Asian allies from joining the initial 21 founding members. Australia, Japan and South Korea all stayed out—though other staunch American friends such as New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand signed up. The joiners argue that China was going to launch the AIIB anyway; better to be on the inside influencing its governance. The Europeans’ accession is likely to encourage changes of heart among the refuseniks. Australia has already indicated it is reconsidering; South Korea seems almost certain to join......

da lagst du wohl schon richtig, als du vor einigen Tagen hier geschrieben hast, dass der DAX seine "Exportvorteile" exakt in dem Moment wieder auspreisen dürfte, wenn entgegen der Konsenserwartung bzgl. einer anstehenden Zinswende in den USA der Euro gegenüber dem US-Dollar wieder an Land gewinnt. An den Devisenmärkten spielt eben die Musike, nach denen der DAX tanzt.

sagt Shah Gilani

Past and present manipulations must be continued to prevent collapse, but they won't help economic growth in the United States as they did until 2000. Instead they'll only act as a headwind from time to time.

Nur noch die Hälfte hat Ersparnisse für Notfälle, die anderen leben von der Hand in den Mund...

---------------------

streettalklive.com/index.php/...treets-big-scam-bottom-80.html

"Mo Money" Or No Money

In September of last year, I discussed the Federal Reserve's 2013 Survey of household finances which showed a shocking decline in the median value of net worth of families across all age brackets.

While the mainstream media continues to tout that the economy is on the mend, real (inflation-adjusted) median net worth suggests that this is not the case overall.


...The findings are strikingly similar to the U.S. Federal Reserve survey from last year.

   "'Savings are depleted for many households after the recession,' it found. Among those who had savings prior to 2008, 57% said they'd used up some or all of their savings in the Great Recession and its aftermath. What's more, only 39% of respondents reported having a 'rainy day' fund adequate to cover three months of expenses and only 48% of respondents said that they could not completely cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money."

In other words, the rich have gotten richer as rising asset prices have been a major benefit to stock-option based executives who have raked in billions. However, for the majority of the working class, it has remained primarily a struggle to survive much less actually save.

- ein weiteres Top-Signal...

www.handelsblatt.com/video/finanzen/...orge-ohne-aktien/11559218.html

Die Anliehe eines guten Unternehmens wirft oft nur eine minimale Rendite ab. Die Aktie des selben Konzerns hingegen mittelfristig deutlich mehr. Dirk Müller rät deshalb trotz "Dax 12.000" zu Investitionen in den Markt.

(Video im Link des letzten Postings)

Anders als durch Schönsaufen kann man dem "Markt" offenbar nichts Bullisches mehr abgewinnen ;-)

ist auch in meinen Augen ein aalglatter schleimiger Talkshow Sülzer.
Glaub, der würde für ein bisschen Applaus auch seine Großmutter versteigern.
Allerdings bleib ich dabei, der Markt ist robust, obwohl er sich mächtig nach oben abgesondert hat. Natürlich steigt damit die Lust auf Gewinnmitnahmen.
Allerdings standen auch heut wieder sofort Käufer Gewehr bei Fuss. Der Markt bleibt somit "bärenstark"...

Mit Südkorea schliesst sich ein weiterer amerikanischer Verbündeter der von China initiierten neuen Entwicklungsbank in Asien an. Die Regierung in Seoul verspricht sich davon mehr Einfluss in der Region, aber auch mehr Aufträge für koreanische Unternehmen.
....
Für Südkorea war die Entscheidung schwierig, weil es zwischen den wichtigen wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zu China und der sicherheitspolitischen Bindung an Amerika laviert. Das Land verhandelt seit 2012 mit China über ein Freihandelsabkommen, das in den kommenden Monaten abgeschlossen werden soll.

Mit dem Beitritt Südkoreas entwickelt sich für China die Gründung der Asiatischen Infrastruktur- und Investitionsbank (AIIB) zunehmend zu einem diplomatischen Erfolg im Wettstreit mit den Vereinigten Staaten um Einfluss in der Region. Zuvor hatten schon viele europäische Länder erklärt, darunter die Schweiz, sich der neuen Institution anschliessen zu wollen. Unter den amerikanischen Verbündeten in Asien hält sich vor allem Japan abseits.
......
Nach japanischen Medienberichten hat die Regierung in Tokio die Entscheidung über einen Beitritt zur AIIB auf den Sommer vertagt. Die Vereinigten Staaten stehen der Entwicklungsbank skeptisch gegenüber und werben für eine Zusammenarbeit mit der amerikanisch dominierten Weltbank und der alteingesessenen asiatischen Entwicklungsbank ADB, in der Amerika und Japan weitgehend das Sagen haben. Ende März endet die von China gesetzte Frist, um noch Gründungsmitglied der Bank werden zu können.
www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/...zwischen-china-und-den-usa-1.18511354

so Jens Weidmann
www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/...it-kapital-hinterlegt-sein-1.18511398

(Reuters) Bundesbank-Chef Jens Weidmann macht sich für eine Neufassung der Kapitalvorschriften bei Staatsanleihen stark und kann sich auch eine europäische Lösung dieser Frage vorstellen. «Staatsanleihen müssen mit Kapital hinterlegt sein, und für Engagements in ein einzelnes Land muss es eine Obergrenze geben, wie es auch der Fall ist bei jedem privaten Schuldner», sagte Weidmann am Freitag auf einer Finanzkonferenz in Frankfurt. Er begrüsse, dass über das Thema nun im Basler Ausschuss diskutiert werde. «Falls diese Diskussionen aber zu keiner Vereinbarung führen, müssen wir mit einer europäischen Lösung voranschreiten», sagte der Bundesbankpräsident.

Staatsanleihen werden bis jetzt als risikofrei bewertet. Banken müssen daher für ihr Engagement in solche Titel kein Kapital hinterlegen. Wegen der Euro-Schuldenkrise da beispielsweise Länder wie Griechenland von ihren EU-Partnern nur mit Milliarden vor dem finanziellen Kollaps gerettet wurden.gibt es aber zunehmend Kritik an dieser Sichtweise....

In relative terms, Greece received most of Europe’s bailout money and showed the largest increase in unemployment. The official loans granted to the country by the European Central Bank and the international community have increased more than sixfold during the past five years, from €53 billion ($58 billion) in February 2010 to €324 billion, or 181% of GDP, now. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate has more than doubled, from 11% to 26%.

There are four possible economic and policy responses to this state of affairs. First, Europe could become a transfer union, with the north giving more and more credit to the south and later waiving it. Second, the south can deflate. Third, the north can inflate. And, fourth, countries that are no longer competitive can exit Europe’s monetary union and depreciate their new currency.

The ECB’s stated goal is to reflate the eurozone, thereby reducing the euro’s external value, by purchasing more than €1.1 trillion worth of assets. According to ECB President Mario Draghi, the inflation rate, which currently stands at just below 0%, is to be raised to an average of just below 2%.

This would offer southern European countries a way out of their competitiveness trap, because if prices remained unchanged in the south, while the northern countries inflated, the southern countries could gradually reduce their goods’ relative prices without feeling too much pain. Of course, in that case the north needs to inflate faster than by just 2%.

If, say, southern Europe kept its inflation rate at 0% and France inflated at a rate of 1%, Germany would have to inflate by a good 4%, and the rest of the eurozone at 2% annually, to reach a eurozone average of slightly less than 2%. This pattern would have to continue for about ten years to bring the eurozone back into balance. At that point, Germany’s price level would be about 50% higher than it is today.

I do expect QE to bring about some inflation. Given that an exchange rate is the relative price of a currency, as more euros come into circulation, their value has to fall substantially to establish a new equilibrium in the currency market. Experience with similar programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan has shown that QE unleashes powerful forces of depreciation. QE in the eurozone will thus bring about the inflation that Draghi wants via higher import and export prices. Whether this effect will be sufficient to revitalize southern Europe remains to be seen.

There is a risk that Japan, China, and the US will not sit on their hands while the euro loses value, with the world possibly even sliding into a currency war. Moreover, the southern EU countries, instead of leaving prices unchanged, could abandon austerity and issue an ever greater volume of new bonds to stimulate the economy. Competitiveness gains and rebalancing would fail to materialize, and, after an initial flash in the pan, the eurozone would return to permanent crisis. The euro, finally and fully discredited, would then meet a very messy end.

Read more at www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/...03#oJuxUvRQJYrYLlor.99

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-27/...ution-us-gdp-lowest-post-war-era

The contribution of housing to US GDP continues to run at some of the lowest levels since the end of World War II. New construction of single- and multi-family homes, renovations, broker fees and the like still only make up a bit more than 3% of current GDP, well below the post-war average of 4.7%. Not only has the level of lift from housing come in low, but it has bounced out of the last official recession slowly, too. Housing on average has contributed a half a percentage point to GDP a year after the end of every post-war US recession. This time around, housing added only 7 bp. And the contribution of housing in the second and third years after the recent recession also has fallen well below post-war averages.

...weil die US-Wirtschaft substanziell nicht mehr genug hergibt? Diese Befürchtung äußert Alasdair Macleod, ein Goldbulle, unten.

Die Crux der Fed: Bleiben US-Leitzinsenerhöhungen auch weiterhin aus (den nächsten Aufschub der eigentlich für Sommer erwarteten Erhöhung hat Yellen ja schon latent vorangekündigt), dann könnte die Finanzwelt in nicht allzu ferner Zukunft das Vertrauen in den US-Dollar, US-Staatsanleihen und den ganzen Erholungs-Hokuspokus verlieren.

Es ist daher denkbar, dass die Fed - nur um den schönen Schein zu wahren - trotz schwacher Wirtschaft im Sommer eine leichte Zinserhöhung vornimmt, um Wirtschaftsstärke zumindest vorzugaukeln.

Man kann schönreden, beschwören, tricksen, bereinigen, fälschen, labern. Doch irgendwann wird der Laden den vermeintlichen Machern um die Ohren fliegen: Nicht einmal die "Maestros" an den Notenbanken können die Welt ewig für dumm verkaufen.

-------------------

www.goldmoney.com/research/analysis/...ks-paralysed-at-the-zero-bound

Central banks paralysed at the zero bound
By Alasdair Macleod

Though the Fed would deny it, it is clear from the minutes of the last Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting that a rise in interest rates has been put off indefinitely.

The subsequent rally in the price of gold and the sudden fall in the dollar tend to confirm this conclusion.

The Fed Funds Rate, which is the interest rate the Fed targets to set all other rates, has now been less than 0.25% for six and a quarter years, gradually declining from roughly 0.15% to about 0.10% today. It was set at a target range of between zero and 0.25% in December 2008.

According to the Policy Normalisation Principles and Plans issued last September, the FOMC will raise its target range for the Fed Funds Rate "primarily by adjusting the interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances" when the Fed normalises interest rates, "using reverse repurchase agreements to take money out of circulation to the degree necessary". The Fed also intends to reduce its holdings of securities and contract its balance sheet in the longer run.

If normalisation is the result of economic recovery we will be familiar with the playbook. Demand for money in the economy picks up, and instead of pyramiding bank credit on reserves held at the Fed, the Fed feeds back the excess reserves to the banks by selling government securities into the markets. The bear market in government bonds should be manageable because of underlying pension and insurance company demand coupled with a diminishing budget deficit. This is the long-understood theory behind withdrawing from deficit financing.

The reality has been very different as we all know. The Fed has to face the possibility that, for whatever reason, highly suppressed interest rates are not working, and an escape from the zero interest rate bound without economic recovery may have to be contemplated.

However, if the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate in the absence of genuine economic recovery, there will be little or no expansion of bank credit to offset, and commercial banks will want to dump their Treasuries, not buy more from the Fed. There would be no offsets to cushion the unwinding of long bond positions. In other words the effect of even a small rise in the Fed Funds Rate could develop into a self-feeding rise in bond yields and substantial losses for the banks.

This is the context within which we should consider the Fed's decision to back off from raising the Fed Funds Rate mid-year. It leads to the conclusion that if zero interest rates haven't worked for six and a quarter years, monetary policy itself is in a cul-de-sac with no space to turn. And when we look at Japan and the Eurozone we see similar disappointments over the effectiveness of monetary policy.

Markets are unlikely to wait until the escape from the zero bound is put to the test. Before the investing public becomes aware of the full ramifications of the problem, more prescient bankers and fund managers will reposition their bond holdings, which brings us to gold.

Those of us that follow this market closely know that for the last three years at least Asian demand has led to large shifts of bullion from western capital markets towards Asia. The behaviour of the markets in London and New York already indicate that shortages of physical bullion are a delicate problem, and this is before markets wake up to the growing likelihood that the Fed cannot afford to see interest rates rise.

If interest rates cannot rise, then the dollar itself is ultimately exposed to loss of confidence in the foreign exchanges. The dawning realisation that after recent strength, the dollar is vulnerable after all can be expected to be reflected in a positive sentiment towards gold, which once under way could drive the price up dramatically due to the lack of available bullion.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-28/...am-part-2-we-now-live-pimpocracy

Der Zuhälter

Hey Kleiner! Suchst du jemanden, der sich um dich kümmert, wenn du alt bist?

www.acting-man.com/?p=36590

Der Chart unten zeigt die Lohnentwicklung in USA und China.

---------------------

Bill Bonner

....Platitudes and Hypocrisies

....Americans still say they believe in free markets, democracy and financial rectitude. But only as platitudes and hypocrisies. America’s industries have largely been shipped over to China and other lower-cost producers in the emerging world.

That didn’t “just happen.” The Fed’s EZ money financed it. American consumers borrowed to spend more than they could afford. Walmart met their desires (if not their needs) with “Everyday Low Prices,” courtesy of low-paid Chinese workers.

This sent US dollars to China. The Chinese used the profits to build even more, and better, factories. Pity the American businessman who tried to compete. He was overwhelmed. He had to pay wages 10 times higher than the Chinese. [Chart unten]. He also had to bow to regulations – tax, environment, labor, diverse bullying – that left him hobbled and fettered.

There’s not much left of America’s industrial economy. Seventy percent of the US economy is made up of consumer spending. Manufacturing has fallen to just 12% of the economy… down from 24% in 1971. And it’s now the main source of wealth in only seven states. The deindustrialization of the US is blamed for the slipping wages of low- and middle-class Americans. So is immigration. And robots.

“It’s not unfair,” say the people who caused it. “It’s just the free market.”

But the free market was one of the first casualties of the post-1971 fiat money period.

In a free market, people earn money by working (income) or by saving and investing it (capital growth). But credit-based money needed neither work nor saving; you just had to know the right people. Private banks, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve, could create as much credit money as they pleased and feed it to their cronies on Wall Street.

The new money was then transformed as miraculously as water into wine. For the privileged insiders it was almost free; the Fed made sure of that. But for consumers, it became a heavy burden of debt. And for the economy, it became an inflation mechanism for financial bubbles.

The most recent blew when the banking and mortgage industries (part owned by the feds by way of Fannie and Freddie) lent trillions of dollars to homebuyers, who ended up with debt they couldn’t afford for houses they didn’t need. In 1995, the subprime loan market was about $65 billion. By 2007, it had ballooned to $1.3 trillion – a 1,900% increase.

When the house of cards collapsed in 2008, the feds moved fast. Not to help the homeowners, but to bail out Wall Street – the most reckless risk-takers in subprime debt – and the most incompetent of the big automakers, too.

Wages rise as workers become more productive. Increases in productivity require capital investment (in training, new technology, new materials, etc.). This makes new savings possible. These new savings become the source of new capital investment. But in the 1980s and 1990s, the US savings rate fell.

Why bother to save when you can get phony money from the Fed-controlled banks? Besides, the Fed made sure interest rates stayed ultra-low. This made credit more attractive, as the cost of carrying debt fell. It also made saving money less attractive, as interest rates on savings also fell.

Fewer savings led to less investment in the factories, warehouses, new companies and new technologies that produce real “breadwinner” jobs. Why bother taking the risk growing your business into new markets when you can just borrow from the Fed and buy your own shares? Why bother to start a new small business at all, when all the credit goes to big, entrenched ones?

For most working-class Americans, real earnings peaked in the mid-1970s. Since then, it has been downhill. The rich get richer. The poor and middle classes go further into debt to try to keep up. Since the credit crisis of 2008, nearly 100% of the asset price gains went to the top 10% of the population. This was no accident. The Fed put its credit machine to work for the rich – heating up asset prices, but leaving the rest of the economy cold.

Now the US is the world’s biggest debtor. Not relative to GDP. That title goes to Japan. But it is still a distinction worth noting: The US went from the world’s biggest credit to its biggest debt in little more than a single generation.

What to make of it? The natural process of history? A fluke? We don’t think so. It is the result of public policy decisions made by the hacks, hangers-on and has-beens who gain the most from them.

There were no popular debates. There were no votes. Small but powerful elites created the fiat dollar, the TARP, ZIRP and QE. They were also responsible for Washington’s spending, regulation and tax decisions. That these creations favored the same elites was more than a coincidence.

... we simply note that cheap money has done what it always does: undermine the economy and the society that hosts it. It can even happen when you have a gold-backed monetary system....

Dies erkennt nun auch, mit 6 Jahren Verspätung, die Financial Times:

Quelle: Guggenheim Partners (Nachdruck)

QE will lower living standards long term

The long-term consequences of global QE are likely to permanently impair living standards for generations to come while creating a false illusion of reviving prosperity.

A version of this article first appeared in the Financial Times.

As economic growth returns again to Europe and Japan, the prospect of a synchronous global expansion is taking hold. Or, then again, maybe not. In a recent research piece published by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, global economic growth, as measured in nominal U.S. dollars, is projected to decline in 2015 for the first time since 2009, the height of the financial crisis.

In fact, the prospect of improvement in economic growth is largely a monetary illusion. [A.L.: mein Reden seit 2009...] No one needs to explain how policymakers have made painfully little progress on the structural reforms necessary to increase global productive capacity and stimulate employment and demand. Lacking the political will necessary to address the issues, central bankers have been left to paper over the global malaise with reams of fiat currency.

With politicians lacking the willingness or ability to implement labor and tax reforms, monetary policy has perversely morphed into a new orthodoxy where even central bankers admittedly view it as their job to use their balance sheets as a tool to implement fiscal policy.

One argument is that if central banks were not created to execute fiscal policy, then why require them to maintain any capital at all? Capital is that which is held in reserve to absorb losses. If losses are to be anticipated, then a reasonable inference is that a certain expectation of risk must exist. Therefore, central banks must be expected to take on some risk for policy purposes, which implies a function beyond the creation of a monetary base to maintain price stability...

With a surging U.S. dollar and growth remaining sluggish in much of the world, Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecasts that world output measured in dollars could fall in 2015 [siehe Chart unten, A.L.] for the first time since the financial crisis. Over the past 34 years, this has happened just five times.

...What kinds of risk are appropriate for a central bank? Well, the maintenance of a nation’s banking system would plainly be in scope, given the central bank’s role as lender of last resort. The defense of the currency as a store of value and medium of exchange is another appropriate risk. This was the apparent motivation of Mario Draghi, European Central Bank president, for his famous promise to defend the euro at all costs in the summer of 2012. The central bank balance sheet has proven a flexible tool limited in use only by the creativity of central bankers themselves.

In response to those who argue against the metamorphosis of monetary policy into fiscal policy, one need only point toward the impact of quantitative easing (QE) on interest rates. The depressed returns available on fixed-income securities, largely as a result of QE, are acting as a tax on investors, including individual savers, pension funds, and insurance companies.

Essentially, monetary authorities around the globe are levying a tax on investors and providing a subsidy to borrowers. Taxation and subsidies, as well as other wealth transfer payment schemes, have historically fallen within the realm of fiscal policy under the control of the electorate. Under the new monetary orthodoxy, the responsibility for critical aspects of fiscal policy has been surrendered into the hands of appointed officials [= ungewählte Beamte, A.L.] who have been left to salvage their economies, often under the guise of pursuing monetary order.

The consequences of the new monetary orthodoxy are yet to be fully understood. ...

Despite ultra-loose monetary policies over the past several years, incomes adjusted for inflation have fallen for the median U.S. family. [A.L: siehe dazu auch: dieses BT-Posting] With the benefits of monetary expansion going to a small share of the population and wage growth stagnating, incomes have been essentially flat over the past 20 years.

In the long run, however, classical economics would tell us that the pricing distortions created by the current global regimes of QE will lead to a suboptimal allocation of capital and investment, which will result in lower output and lower standards of living over time. In fact, although U.S. equity prices are setting record highs, real median household incomes are 9 percent lower than 1999 highs. The report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch plainly supports the conclusion that QE and the associated currency depreciation is not leading to higher global output.

The cost of QE is greater than the income lost to savers and investors. The long-term consequence of the new monetary orthodoxy is likely to permanently impair living standards for generations to come while creating a false illusion of reviving prosperity.

---

"Schrumpf"-Prognose für 2015 von Bank of America:

(aus meinem letzten Posting:)

Despite ultra-loose monetary policies over the past several years, incomes adjusted for inflation have fallen for the median U.S. family. [A.L: siehe dazu auch: dieses BT-Posting]

www.marketwatch.com/story/...be-due-to-one-of-these-charts-2015-03-27

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — In a speech delivered Friday afternoon, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen laid out the conditions that would prevent the central bank from making its first rate hike in about nine years.

“I would be uncomfortable raising the federal funds rate if readings on wage growth (= lächerlich, die US-Löhne fallen real seit 1970), core consumer prices, and other indicators of underlying inflation pressures were to weaken, if market-based measures of inflation [= Kurse von TIPS?] compensation were to fall appreciably further, or if survey-based measures were to begin to decline noticeably,” Yellen said.

--------------------

A.L. Die weltweite Aktien-Rallye seit Oktober verdankt sich (neben Euro-QE) vor allem der hedonistisch von der Fed prophezeiten US-Erholung für 2015, die jedoch eine Fiktion ist (siehe Chart am Ende von # 593).

Wie kam es zu diesem Hedonismus? Weil die Fed die Zinsen nicht endlos bei Null lassen kann, wenn sie gleichzeitig allenthalben von einer US-Erholung schwärmt, wurde die 2015-Zinserhöhung für Yellen eine Art psychologischer Zugzwang. Um dies besser ertragen bzw. sich selbst besser in die Tasche lügen zu können, ging die Fed tatsächlich von einer deutlichen Wirtschaftserholung für 2015 aus.

Wir hatten im Bärenthread schon im Herbst gemutmaßt, dass diese rosige Prognose - wie schon in den Vorjahren - auch diesmal niht aufgehen wird. Und in der Tat künden die sich in den letzten Monaten eintrübenden US-Wirtschaftsdaten, dass hier wohl vor allem der Wunsch Vater des Gedanken war.

Getreu der "postmodernen" Fed-Maxime: "Märkte sind eh nur Psychologie. Wenn wir die Erholung nur laut genug vorankündigen, dann wird sie schon kommen...."

Denkste.

Neue Allianz gegen die USA
Gegen den Dollar: Russland will bei Chinas Entwicklungsbank einsteigen

Russland will sich an an der neuen chinesischen Entwicklungsbank AIIB beteiligen. Die AIIB gilt als Gegenstück zur Weltbank und dem IWF und soll den Einfluss der USA im asiatisch-pazifischen zurückdrängen. Sehr zum Ärger der Amerikaner haben sich auch die Verbündeten Australien und Südkorea der neuen Allianz angeschlossen.

deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/...gsbank-einsteigen/

It is in this context that Putin has been able to use Western pressure as a tool to regain the support of many Russians, who only a few years ago would have felt detached from, if not alienated by, his government. Presented with a real or imagined threat to the fatherland, the average Russian supports the country’s leaders.

Nor is the Russian middle class, which makes up some 20-30% of the population, likely to pose much of a threat to Putin. With many of its members owing their recent wealth to high oil prices and the economic recovery of the 2000s, loyalty to the Putin regime is one of the Russian middle class’s abiding characteristics.
.....
Read more at www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/...03#Cd71ZsVHCR34Sxhq.99

So sind beispielsweise Weltbank und IWF von den USA und ihren westlichen Verbündeten eindeutig dominierte Finanzorgane. Dass Peking mittlerweile zu den größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt aufgestiegen ist und somit auch auf einen dementsprechend gewichteten Einfluss drängt, erscheint aufgrund dieser Prämisse zunächst legitim. Wer das jedoch zum Anlass nimmt, einen Abgesang auf den raschen Verfall der globalen Führungsrolle der USA anzustimmen, tut dies möglicherweise doch zu früh.

Nomi Prins im Interview mit Lars Schall:

LS: Lassen Sie uns schnell vorwärtsspringen. Sehen Sie die Finanzmacht der USA auf dem Globus im Niedergang begriffen?

NP: Ich nicht, weil – und das ist anders als das, was viele meiner Zeitgenossen sagen –, aufgrund dieser Machtallianz, die besteht, wegen der Festigkeit und den historischen Verbindungen zwischen dem Weißen Haus und den mächtigsten Akteuren und Institutionen und Vermächtnissen an der Wall Street. Es steht so viel auf dem Spiel für beide Seiten, und es werden solche epischen Subventionen ans Finanzsystem gegeben wie es ist, da dies die Macht der Regierung in Washington und umgekehrt stärkt.

Das ist der Grund, weshalb die Regierung diesen großen Bankern und Instituten erlaubt, mit dem, was sie tun, davonzukommen, und weshalb sie sie in dem Umfang subventioniert, in dem sie es tut. Diese Banken werden künstlich durch Subventionen gestützt, und nicht von ihrer eigenen inhärenten Rentabilität. Dies ist eine sehr gefährliche Position, in der sie sich befinden, und in die sie uns alle hineinbringen. Die Fed hält 4,2 Billionen Dollar an Wertpapieren, die aufgrund eines epischen Anleiheaufkaufs in ihrer Bilanz stehen, zusätzlich zur Verfolgung einer Nullzinspolitik seit fast sechs Jahren in der Folge der Krise von 2008.

Das ist nur ein weiterer Hinweis darauf, wie viel Kraft, wie viel Macht aufgewendet wird, und wie viel dumme, aber echte Entscheidungen in Washington gemacht werden, um diese Machtallianz zu bewahren. Ich glaube nicht, dass es derzeit irgendeine andere Nation in der Welt gibt, die eine so starke und historische Verbindung zwischen ihrer Politik und ihrem Bankensystem hat, und das ist der Grund dafür, warum die USA weiterhin das tun, was sie tun, und warum sie diese Entscheidungen treffen und in diesem Machtspiel Straflosigkeit für diese Personen ermöglichen. Ich denke, solange es so viel Subventionierung und so wenig Verantwortlichkeit im Bankensystem gibt, wird die US-Finanzmacht bewahrt werden. Es ist eine schlechte Art und Weise der Machterhaltung, aber ich denke, dass ist das, was wir jetzt sehen und sehen werden.

Komplett hier

www.larsschall.com/2015/03/26/...kalte-krieg-und-die-weltbank/

Let's dive into the FactSet Earnings Insight Report for first quarter of 2015.
www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/...t/earningsinsight_3.27.15

Key Metrics

   Earnings Growth: For Q115, year-over-year earnings for the S&P 500 are projected to decline by 4.6%. If the index reports a year-over-year decline for the quarter, it will be the first time since Q 3 2012 (-1.0%).
   Earnings Revisions: On December 31, the estimated earnings growth rate for Q1 2015 was 4.2%. All ten sectors have lower growth rates today (compared to December 31) due to downward revisions to earnings estimates, led by the Energy sector.
   Earnings Guidance: For Q1 2015, 85 companies have issued negative EPS guidance and 16 companies have issued positive EPS guidance.
   Valuation: The current 12-month forward P/E ratio is 16.7. This P/E ratio is above the 5-year (13.7) average and the 10-year (14.1) average for the index.
   Earnings Scorecard: Of the 16 companies that have reported earnings to date for Q1 2015, 14 have reported earnings above the mean estimate and 10 have reported sales above the mean estimate.

Overview
Analysts and corporations continue to lower expecta
tions for earnings for the S&P 500 for the first
quarter. On a per-share basis, estimated earnings f
or the first quarter have fallen by 8.2% since
December 31. This is the largest decline in the bot
tom-up EPS estimate for a quarter since Q1 2009
Companies have also lowered the bar for earnings fo
r Q1, as 85 companies in the index have issued
negative EPS guidance, while just 16 companies have
issued positive EPS guidance. The percentage of
companies issuing negative EPS guidance is 84% (85
out of 101), which is well above the 5-year average
of 68%


Every year, whether earnings are going up or down, companies guide analysts to numbers low enough they can beat.
Don't Worry Companies Will Still "Beat the Street"

In spite of those downgrades, history suggests corporations will still "Beat the Street".
Even in 2008 and 2009 the majority of firms beat estimates. Here is the way the process works:

   Corporations give analysts "tips" regarding profit expectations.
   Those profit expectations are purposely low.
   Wall Street analysts lower estimates, if necessary, as the quarter progresses such that corporations can "beat the street".
   If corporations are going to miss and need an extra penny, they change tax assumption or make other "one time" adjustments as necessary.
   Corporations beat the street by a penny with "pro-forma" (after adjustment) reporting.

Stock are only cheap compared to 1929, the dot-com bubble, and the housing bubble. Given the plunge in earnings estimates, this market will soon pass the housing bubble in amplitude.The 1929 peak may even be in sight. And in many ways, this bubble is worse than the dot-com bubble, as during the tech wreck one could find many companies with good valuations. It was predominately technology with PE extremes.


Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/...bVOWtaaYlfZp3g0.99

And Wall Street’s promise of “Escape Velocity,” the miracle speed that the US economy would achieve in the near future to pull out of its sluggish orbit and move to the next level? That promise has been propagated for years. Each time, and with relentless regularity, it turned into just another false Wall-Street promise whose purpose it was to rationalize stock prices that have defied rationalization, and drive them even higher. And in doing so, the year-after-year promise of “Escape Velocity” has become a joke.

The Fed has floored the monetary accelerator with its steel-capped, lead-lined boot for over six years. Other central banks have followed. They expected, or pretended to expect, that it would create demand, economic activity, and consumer-price inflation. None of which happened. Instead, it created a “bond bubble” that is becoming “more extreme” and stock markets that are “overvalued,” according to 11,000 financial professionals
wolfstreet.com/2015/03/25/...ro-growth-escape-velocity-stalls/