Let me preface this post, by noting that I try to avoid writing about gold, since there are some many other excellent analysts out there writing about the subject. But when there is a such a strong overlap between gold and forex markets, well, I just can’t resist!
Recently, gold prices have collapsed at virtually the same rate as the Euro, with the result being a near-record high short-term correlation between EUR/USD and gold prices. This has caused no shortage of confusion among gold-watchers, which are accustomed to seeing the strongest (inverse) correlation with the US Dollar. This change is causing everyone to rethink some classically held assumptions about gold prices.
The foremost of which is that gold is chiefly a hedge against the Dollar, which is a symbol for inflation and erosion of value. [In fact, analysts argue that gold has little real purpose (besides a handful of trivial practical uses, such as jewelry), especially since holders of gold don't receive interest, there is little reason to own it other than as a store of value]. Thus, as the Dollar has declined over the last five years, gold has soared. Investors who are nervous about perennial budget deficits in the US and the skyrocketing national debt, have turned to Gold because of the belief it will continue to hold its value even (or especially) if the US government is forced to devalue its debt by devaluing the Dollar. While this tenet underlies the gold/Dollar inverse relationship, the long and short of it is that investors typically buy gold when the Dollar falls, and vice versa. Thus, when the credit crisis struck and the Dollar rallied, gold prices fell, despite the fact that the US was now more likely to default on its debt.
In the last month, however, the Euro has taken center stage in dictating the price of gold. This is most likely because of the sovereign debt problems of certain EU countries. A not insignificant number of which well exceed the budget (not to exceed 3% of GDP per year) and debt (not to exceed 60% of GDP) limitations imposed on them by their membership in the EU. Recent credit rating downgrades have underscored an increasing likelihood of default, which has been duly noted both by the forex and gold markets. As the Euro has dropped (quite dramatically in fact), so has gold.
According to the current paradigm, this is not wholly unsurprising, since the Euro’s fall has naturally been mirrored by a rise in the Dollar. Thus, if you continue to look at gold prices in terms of the Dollar, it seems naturally that a rising Dollar is being accompanied by falling gold. On the other hand, the fact that the Dollar is suddenly rising has little to do with a change in US fundamentals, and instead reflects the fact that in forex, it’s impossible to short all currencies simultaneously, even if sometimes fundamentals would justify such an approach.
In other words, that certain EU member states are more likely to default on their respective debt obligations has limited bearing on whether the US will also default. [If anything, it increases the likelihood, since a default in the EU would likely send sovereign borrowing costs higher around the world, straining the ability of the US to continue borrowing]. By extension, the current drop in the price of gold is fundamentally irrational, especially when viewed relative to currency markets. To borrow a hackneyed expression, perhaps it’s time for a paradigm shift.
Recently, gold prices have collapsed at virtually the same rate as the Euro, with the result being a near-record high short-term correlation between EUR/USD and gold prices. This has caused no shortage of confusion among gold-watchers, which are accustomed to seeing the strongest (inverse) correlation with the US Dollar. This change is causing everyone to rethink some classically held assumptions about gold prices.
The foremost of which is that gold is chiefly a hedge against the Dollar, which is a symbol for inflation and erosion of value. [In fact, analysts argue that gold has little real purpose (besides a handful of trivial practical uses, such as jewelry), especially since holders of gold don't receive interest, there is little reason to own it other than as a store of value]. Thus, as the Dollar has declined over the last five years, gold has soared. Investors who are nervous about perennial budget deficits in the US and the skyrocketing national debt, have turned to Gold because of the belief it will continue to hold its value even (or especially) if the US government is forced to devalue its debt by devaluing the Dollar. While this tenet underlies the gold/Dollar inverse relationship, the long and short of it is that investors typically buy gold when the Dollar falls, and vice versa. Thus, when the credit crisis struck and the Dollar rallied, gold prices fell, despite the fact that the US was now more likely to default on its debt.
In the last month, however, the Euro has taken center stage in dictating the price of gold. This is most likely because of the sovereign debt problems of certain EU countries. A not insignificant number of which well exceed the budget (not to exceed 3% of GDP per year) and debt (not to exceed 60% of GDP) limitations imposed on them by their membership in the EU. Recent credit rating downgrades have underscored an increasing likelihood of default, which has been duly noted both by the forex and gold markets. As the Euro has dropped (quite dramatically in fact), so has gold.
According to the current paradigm, this is not wholly unsurprising, since the Euro’s fall has naturally been mirrored by a rise in the Dollar. Thus, if you continue to look at gold prices in terms of the Dollar, it seems naturally that a rising Dollar is being accompanied by falling gold. On the other hand, the fact that the Dollar is suddenly rising has little to do with a change in US fundamentals, and instead reflects the fact that in forex, it’s impossible to short all currencies simultaneously, even if sometimes fundamentals would justify such an approach.
In other words, that certain EU member states are more likely to default on their respective debt obligations has limited bearing on whether the US will also default. [If anything, it increases the likelihood, since a default in the EU would likely send sovereign borrowing costs higher around the world, straining the ability of the US to continue borrowing]. By extension, the current drop in the price of gold is fundamentally irrational, especially when viewed relative to currency markets. To borrow a hackneyed expression, perhaps it’s time for a paradigm shift.
New CFTC Forex Regulations Unpopular, but Worthwhile
I try not to editorialize much when writing this blog. There are too many talking heads as it is, which is why I try not to interject own opinions into the facts. Admittedly, the notion of facts in forex is obviously a bit murky, but I stand by my approach, nonetheless. Today, I would like your permission to stray from the facts (well, not entirely) and offer my opinion on the recently proposed regulatory overhaul for trading forex.For those of you who haven’t been following this story, let me give you an overview. On January, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed a set of sweeping changes to the rules that currently govern forex trading in the US. Among the changes are beefed-up requirements for forex dealers which would be legally required to register with the CFTC as “retail foreign exchange dealers”, and satisfy certain capital adequacy requirements, aimed at mitigating counter-party risk (i.e. dealer bankruptcy.) In addition, “introducing brokers,” (i.e. those that act as intermediaries between customers and dealers) would be required to sign exclusivity agreements with dealers, who would in turn be required to vouch for their brokers. Last, but not least, would be a bombshell change that would shrink leverage (i.e. raise margin requirements) to a maximum of 10:1.
We have are now partially through a 60-day “comment period,” during which the CFTC is soliciting feedback from stakeholders to determine if and in what form it should ratify these changes. And feedback is indeed reverberating around the blogosphere (more so than traditional media, based on my observation). Most industry insiders are predictably opposed to the regulation, on the grounds that it will make them less competitive with their (lightly regulated) foreign counterparts. Based on an online poll, it seems the majority of forex traders are as well. On forums, many have promised to shift their accounts overseas (or are gloating about already having done so) as soon as the measures pass. Meanwhile, the blogger to come out most prominently in favor of the regulation, is none other than Karl Denninger, who champions the the potential increase in transparency in decrease as leverage, but notes that it will probably bring about the “Death of Retail Forex.”
Personally, I am inclined to agree with Denninger (though not his flawed math, nor his erroneous tirade against rollover fees), on the grounds that transparency – especially with regard to commissions, which are dissimulated and ultimately buried in spreads – can only benefit customers. In addition, requiring all brokers and dealers to register, while strengthening the CFTC’s jurisdiction over forex will surely go a long way towards minimizing fraud, which remains rampant and in disguise, even among major brokers. Interestingly, industry lobbyists have come out in tepid support of this measure, but only because it will also raise the barriers of the entry.
As for the clause that aims to limit margin – and is really the only one that anyone is seriously protesting – this is also a step in the right direction. While libertarians and the 1% of traders that have turned a profit employing 100:1 leverage (the current U.S industry standard) will surely disagree, I think that sometimes, people need to be protected from themselves. I don’t want to frame this debate in political terms, however, since at the end of the day, such high leverage is both de-stabilizing to the market, and unnecessary. It’s destabilizing, because of the massive speculation it invites, and its resulting contribution to volatility and systemic risk, and unnecessary because it’s impossible to produce a viable trading strategy that’s built on borrowing 100 times as much money as you are able to commit. For the sake of comparison, consider that the average hedge fund, its reputation for excessive risk-taking not withstanding, will rarely employ leverage greater than 2:1. How about another comparison: Has 100:1 leverage (i.e. 1% down-payment) been good for the housing market, from both the standpoint of individual and society?
As for the argument that retail traders will instead send their money off-shore to gamble (cough, I mean trade), well I suppose that’s possible. But given that a related piece of recent regulation has been very successful at preventing Americans from patronizing offshore casinos, I’m sure the government can ensure a high rate of adherence with this piece as well. But obviously, this too, is a highly charged political issue, and it’s probably not practical to examine forex from this angle.
In the end, I think the government has (rightly) identified retail forex as the casino it is, and is finally taking steps to make it legitimate. For regular readers of the Forex Blog and those that follow its implicit approach (i.e. not churning your portfolio on a daily, or even weekly basis), I am confident that this regulation, if approved, will NOT adversely affect you. As for everyone else, maybe it’s time to either re-think your strategy, or ask yourself whether trading forex is still right for you.
0
Blogger 0
Facebook