XForex

Despite reaching a temporary stalemate, the currency war rages on, and individual countries continue to debate whether they should enter or watch their currencies continue to appreciate. Nowhere is that debate stronger than in New Zealand, whose Kiwi currency has fallen 37% against the US Dollar since its peak in early 2009, and over 15% since June of this year.

With most countries, the war cries are coming from the political establishment, who feel compelled to demonstrate to their constituents that they are diligently monitoring the currency war. This is largely the case in New Zealand, as Members of Parliament have argued forcefully in favor of intervention. Prime Minister John Key is a little more pragmatic: He “says his Government is concerned about the strength of our dollar, but is not convinced intervention would work…politicians who think intervention can happen without economic consequences, are fooling themselves.” Showing an astute understanding of economics, he pointed out that trying to limit the Kiwi’s appreciation would manifest itself in the form of higher inflation, higher interest rates, and/or reduced access to capital.
This is essentially the position of Alan Bollard, Governor of the Central Bank of New Zealand. He has insisted (correctly) that the New Zealand is being driven up, so much as its currency counterparts – namely the US Dollar – are being driven downward, by forces completely disconnected from New Zealand and way beyond its control. Thus, if New Zealand tried to intervene, it would quickly be overpowered (perhaps deliberately!) by speculators. Ultimately, it would end up spending lots of money in vain, and the Kiwi would continue to appreciate.
Mr. Bollard has pointed out that a stronger currency is not without its perks: such as lower (relative) prices for certain natural resources, such as oil. In addition, since New Zealand is largely a commodity economy, its producers are being compensated for an expensive currency in the form of higher prices for milk, wool, and other staple exports. While its other manufacturing operations have been punished by the expensive Kiwi, its economy is still relatively robust. Thanks to a series of tax cuts and the lowest interest rates in New Zealand history, GDP is forecast to return to trend in 2010 and 2011.

New Zealand’s concerns are understandable, and there is an argument to be made for preventing the Dollars that are printed from the Fed’s QE2 from being put to unproductive purposes in New Zealand. At the same time, New Zealand is not such an attractive target for speculators. Its benchmark interest rate, at 3%, is relatively low compared to developing countries. Its current account balance is projected to continue declining, perhaps down to -8%, which means that the net flow of capital is actually out of New Zealand. In addition, while the Kiwi has appreciated against the US Dollar, it has fallen mightily against the Australian Dollar en route to a multi-year low.
Going forward, there is reason to believe that the New Zealand Dollar will continue to appreciate against the US Dollar as a result of QE2 and a general sense of pessimism towards the US. The same is true with regard to currencies that actively intervene to prevent their currencies from appreciating. Still, I don’t think the New Zealand Dollar will reach parity – against any currency – anytime soon, and after the currency fracas subsides, it will probably trend towards its long-term average.

Last week, the Canadian Dollar became the second currency – after the Australian Dollar – to reach parity against the US Dollar. While the case for Loonie parity is not quite as strong as the Aussie’s, there is nonetheless reason to believe that it will continue trading at this level for the short-term.

It’s not hard to understand what’s driving the Loonie; the weak Dollar. As the Fed embarks on further monetary easing (QE2), investors are nervous that all of these new Dollars will be deployed in a speculative – rather than productive capacity. Emerging market currencies are particularly popular, with commodity currencies, such as the Canadian Dollar, not far behind.
According to Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, “The outlook for the Canadian dollar… ultimately reflects the economic fundamentals.” While he has threatened to intervene if currency markets are “disrupted” (i.e. if the Loonie rises to an unreasonable level), past history and the tone of Carney’s remarks suggests that the Bank of Canada will remain on the sidelines for the duration of the currency war.
From where I’m sitting, the Canadian Dollar (as with the New Zealand Dollar, the subject of my previous post), don’t deserve to benefit from the speculative wall of money that is flowing out of the US. The Canadian economy is projected to grow by only 1% in 2010, and after adjusting for the contraction in 2009, it is still the same size as it two years ago. Not to mention that the Canadian government issued a record amount of debt to shepherd the economy through the recession.
Most worrying is that Canada’s trade deficit is nearing a record high, and on an annualized basis is now approaching $30 Billion a year.  In addition, anecdotal stories suggest that Canadians are engaging in cross-border shopping and traveling abroad in great numbers to take advantage of relatively cheap prices. With the Canadian Dollar now at parity, these phen0omena are already becoming entrenched: “We would not anticipate much of an improvement in these trade patterns in the next couple of quarters,” said one economist.
There are two observations that can be made here. First of all, while Canada is certainly a natural resource economy, the boom in commodity prices  really isn’t helping Canada in the same way that it is helping Australia, for example. That’s mainly because Canada’s principal market for commodity exports is the US, which remains weak. In contrast, the booming economies of China and Greater Asia ensure an expansive and growing market for Australian natural resources. Moreover, as evidenced by a growing trade deficit, exports of commodities are being offset by an increase in imports: “Economists at Bank of Montreal and Desjardins Financial say weak trade will carve as much as three percentage points from GDP growth in the third quarter.”
The second observation is that currency markets are self-correcting, and that is especially true in the case of the Canada. As the Loonie rises, Canadian exports become less competitive, and consumers (sometimes physically!) start importing more. At some point then, the Loonie will reverse its decline, and the trade deficit will shrink.
However, if you drill deeper into the numbers, you can see that Canada is running a sizable trade surplus with the US. That means that the Canadian Dollar probably has room to rise further (or the Dollar has room to fall further), before the bilateral trade deficit would even close to narrowing. On a trade-weighted basis (perhaps against the Euro), the Loonie has few sources of fundamental support. For what it’s worth, analysts from CIBC World Markets seem to agree: they see the Loonie declining more than 5% over the next six months as the uproar over QE2 gradually fades, and the data shows that only a modicum of the newly printed US Dollars found their way into Canada.

Today, we bring you an interview with Mike Hewitt of Dollar Daze, whose “belief is that the paper currencies of the world are presently undergoing a devaluation.” Below, Mr. Hewitt shares his thoughts on the US Dollar, Chinese Yuan, inflation, and why you should be paying attention to Gold and other commodities.

Forex Blog: I would like to begin by asking about your background. What interested you in the US Dollar, to the extent that you decided to blog about it on a regular basis?

I first began investing in earnest around the top of the dot.com era in the late-90’s. At the time, I spent much time perusing the various mainstream media financial sites. I invested primarily into the heavily advocated technology stocks. Additionally, I worked at Nortel which at that time was Canada’s premier company, representing everything the so-called ‘New Economy’ entailed.
In 2005, I decided it was time to begin documenting articles of interest and place down some of my own thoughts and conclusions. Through several incarnations, this developed into what DollarDaze is today.
Of course we all know how the ‘New Economy’ ended. Like many of my peers, my investments plunged. While in terms of percentage the losses were staggering, fortunately since I was beginning, the actual dollar amounts involved were quite modest. From that early experience I decided that my understanding of how economics and markets worked needed to change.
I began reading various books and came across a chapter on central banking and fiat currency. For the first time in my life, I realized that gold did not back paper money – not the US dollar, not the British pound or even the Euro. No modern currency is backed by anything tangible. This topic became of great interest to me and I sought out any additional material I could addressing this issue.

Forex Blog: You blogged recently about the dilemma faced by the People’s Bank of China, whereby it desperately wants to limit its exposure to the US Dollar but that any attempts to actually do so would almost certainly cause the value of its reserves to fall? Can you elaborate on this, and explain what you believe to be the PBOC’s most likely course of action?

Beginning in late 2004, the PBOC began buying US debt at an impressive rate, and actually surpassed Japan as the largest holder in mid-2008. A large accumulation of any currency becomes a burden for the holder as they cannot be quickly unwound without driving the underlying currency down and precipitating the very capital loss that the holder is attempting to avoid. China’s situation today shares many eerie parallels to that of France in the 1930’s.
Following the events of WWI, France experienced a decade of currency instability. This ended when the French government mandated the French central bank to buy foreign exchange on the market to avoid excessive currency appreciation. This effectively pegged the French franc to the British pound sterling and U.S. dollar.
Through a process of maintaining an undervalued currency, France recorded trade balance surpluses. At one point it was estimated that the Banque de France held more than half of the world’s volume of foreign reserves.
When the Bank of England suspended their obligation to sell gold at a fixed price in response to a collapse of the banking system in continental Europe, the result was an immediate and sharp devaluation of the British pound. The central bank of France held an estimated £62 million in paper (at that time equivalent to over 450 tonnes of gold). In order to stem their capital losses when the pound sterling dropped, the central bank of France added fuel to the fire by liquidating much of their paper position.
Roll the clocks forward to the new millennium and we see a very similar scenario, but with different players. The Chinese government has enforced a pegged currency through the purchase of foreign reserves. But the important question is whether the end-game will be the same as before.
From what sources are available, the PBOC appears to be both gradually reducing their exposure to US denominated debt and perhaps more importantly, cycling out of longer-term US debt into short-term paper. Perhaps the PBOC can strategically use Bernanke’s QE2 as an opportunity to further reduce their exposure without instilling a panic flight from the US dollar.

Forex Blog: On a related note, I enjoyed your analysis of the “Growth of Global Currency in Circulation” and was surprised to learn that the Chinese Yuan is being printed at an even faster rate (relatively) than the US Dollar. With this in mind, do you think that calls for the Chinese Yuan to appreciate are unreasonable?

The PBOC has been expanding their money supply at a higher rate than the US Federal reserve for many years now. Much of the explosive growth in China is being fuelled by monetary expansion.
I would be hesitant to speculate on any fiat currency which is being produced in great quantities as being a source of strength. Yes, there are factors suggesting that the Chinese yuan is undervalued, but at the same time, the economy of China is not immune to the negative effects of an inflation induced boom caused by monetary expansion.
Interestingly enough, China experimented with paper money around 800 AD and fully abandoned it six centuries later following several boom-bust cycles. The first issue of official paper notes in Europe from a chartered bank was in 1661 by the Bank of Sweden.

Forex Blog: The Federal Reserve Bank has been accused of (inadvertently) stoking the ongoing currency war through the expansion of its Quantitative Easing (QE2) program. Given that all Central Banks continuously expand their money supplies, do you think accusation is fair? More importantly, do you think that the Dollar will continue to decline as this policy is gradually implemented?

I recently compiled statistics comparing expansion of the monetary bases for different currencies. The three largest are shown below.

As one can readily see, the monetary base of all three currencies are increasing, but it puts into perspective just how truly large the actions of the Federal Reserve were to the crisis of 2008. This chart doesn’t include any data from the QE2 program.
While these increases are not directly inflationary, they do present an enormous potential for currency debasement. These reserves can be thought of as being similar to what a major new discovery of a mineable deposit would have to the price of the metal. The price of the metal is only indirectly affected until the newly mined metal reaches the market, at which point it will plunge.

Forex Blog: You have criticized the Fed for its “ardent” fight against deflation. If you look at the experience of Japan over the last 20 years, it would seem to prove that deflation is associated with currency appreciation but economic stagnation? Do you think that deflation in the US would follow a different form?

I believe it important to be very specific with what we mean by saying ‘deflation’. Originally, the term ‘deflation’, and its counterpart, ‘inflation’, referred to changes in the money supply. At present, the term ‘deflation’ relates to decreasing prices. I think this change in definition obfuscates the issue because prices may decrease for various reasons – increased supply relative to demand, price wars, technological advances in production, or efficiencies in distribution – all affect price.
When stating Japan experienced deflation over the last 20 years, I speculate that this definition has been further restricted. Instead of now referring to general price levels, it is concerned primarily with asset prices. This continues to confuse the issue by further removing the cause-effect relationships of increasing supply on the overall economy.
At the peak of the Nikkei at the end of 1989, there was approximately ¥38.5 trillion yen in circulation. Twenty year later, that figure has more than doubled to ¥82.7 trillion. To me, that is inflation.
I would speculate that the US will begin a similar route, but holding the privileged status of being the ‘de facto’ reserve currency of the world, this will affect the global economy.

Forex Blog: The series of long-term currency charts that are displayed on your home page suggest that you subscribe to the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) school of currency analysis. Is this a reasonable assessment?

I hope to update those charts to reflect the historical trend of different currencies relative to gold. The reason being is that they are currently based on CPI statistics from the BLS. Given that I do believe government statistics such as the CPI to be inaccurate of the real world, I am not entirely satisfied with these charts.
I hold that gold, being a material that functions well as a store of value, provides a much more objective standard to use as a measuring tool.

Forex Blog: Do you think that gold represents the best long-term hedge (aka store of value) in the context of the US Dollar’s continued decline? How do you reconcile the rise in Gold with the fact that inflation in the US is at a 50-year low?

I simply do not buy into the notion that the inflation rate, as measured by the CPI, is an effective method. While the fundamental notion of measuring a ‘basket of goods’ throughout time seems as a good methodology, the various manipulations through which this calculation is subjected (geometric weighting, hedonics, substitution) removes any credibility.
I know that I am paying more for groceries, gas, utilities and other general living expenses than I was before. John William’s site Shadow Government Statistics calculates the CPI the way it was done in previous years and finds the rate to be around 8-10%. That figure feels much more in line with my own personal observations.
Gold is moving up because its monetary value is being realized by a growing portion of the populace concerned with what the increasing money supply will do to the dollar.

Forex Blog: What is your medium-term prediction for the US Dollar. In other words, how will QE2, currency wars, renewed appetite for risk, etc. affect the Dollar after the next few years?

I advocate a strong fundamental position in vehicles which function well as a store of value, such as gold.
I would hesitate holding any position which is exposed to currency risk, particularly long-term bonds. These massive purchase programs by the US Federal Reserve are exerting an enormous downward pressure on interest rates. The Fed is called the buyer of last resort. They may soon find themselves to be the only buyer.
Equities are feeling more and more akin to participating at a casino. In the not too distant history, the purpose of buying a stock was to receive a dividend. Nowadays, it seems like greater fool theory is the rule. Like the flipping of over-priced condos, the goal is simply to find someone willing to pay a higher price to unload on.

You can think of this as a follow-up to my last post, entitled “Euro Due for a Correction,” in which I proclaimed that “investors got ahead of themselves when they pushed the Euro down 20% over the first half of 2010, but now they are in danger of making the same mistake, and are pushing the Euro too far in the opposite direction.” Since then, the Euro has indeed fallen 4%. In this case, however, I’m reluctant to toot my own horn, since there were other forces at work.
Namely, he sovereign debt crisis has officially spread beyond Greece, and “Contagion is definitely back on the table.”  Of chief concern is Ireland, whose banking sector is in serious financial turmoil: “Irish banking losses are estimated at up to 80 billion euros ($109 billion), depending on the forecast used, or 50 percent of the economy. As long as housing prices continue to fall, these losses cannot be capped.” At this point, it’s unlikely that the banks can remain afloat without (additional) government help. The only problem is that the government has already raided its welfare fund, and it is projected that additional support would leave a gaping hole in the budget, equivalent to 32% in GDP. Allowing the banks to fail, meanwhile, would lead to economic losses of 50% of GDP.
Portugal and Spain (rounding out the so-called PIGS countries) are also in trouble, with budget deficits of around 9% of GDP. Given that both countries are struggling economically, it is possible that austerity measures and budget cuts could backfire and worsen their respective fiscal situations. Like their Irish counterparts, Portuguese banks remain heavily reliant on access to cheap ECB credit in order to function. Spanish banks, meanwhile are plagued by distressed loans, which account for “5.6 percent of total Spanish bank loans — the highest level since 1996.”
Currently, their governments insist that they can get by without help from the European Commission. To be fair, they have managed both to issue new debt and refinance existing debt without serious difficulty. In addition, Ireland and Portugal have modest reserve funds which could tide them over for close to a year, if need be. The medium-term, however, looks less rosy.

If rising bond yields are any indication, these countries could be in serious trouble. Bond investors are not concerned about an EU bailout, which is seen as inevitable, at least for Ireland. After all, the European Financial Stability Facility that was created in May still has more than $500 Billion left in it. Rather, investors are concerned that they will be asked to take part in the bailout.
Germany, for example, is toughening its stance towards fiscally strained countries, and Angela Merkel has insisted that, “Highly indebted eurozone countries struggling to repay will be forced to restructure their debt in a process of ‘managed insolvency’ and that their creditors will need to take large ‘haircuts.’ ” Up until now, the EU has intimated that will provide a backstop against sovereign default, in order to assuage bond market investors.
This is changing, as German and French politicians insist that they are more beholden to their constituents/taxpayers than they are to their debt-ridden EU brethren.  Given that Germany is fiscally sound, it has pretty much nothing to lose (short of a breakup of the Euro) by playing hardball. In fact, it may actually benefit from scaring away investors, since a weaker Euro will strengthen its export sector.
Going forward, it seems safe to say that the Euro correction will continue, as investors continue to reevaluate their exposure to sovereign credit risk. According to the most recent CFTC Commitments of Traders report, “Investors last week slashed their bets in favor of the euro by 40% to a level not seen since early October.” Of course, given that the Dollar is plagued by its own set of problems, it’s unclear whether the EUR/USD will experience serious fluctuations. Against other currencies, however, the Euro will probably decline: “Those who want to go short euro should consider doing it on the crosses.”

In a recent editorial reprinted in The Business Insider (Here’s Why The Yuan Will Never Be The World’s Reserve Currency), China expert Michael Pettis argued forcefully against the notion that the Chinese Yuan will be ever be a global reserve currency on par with the US Dollar. By his own admission, Pettis seeks to counter the claim that China’s rise is inevitable.
The core of Pettis’s argument is that it is arithmetically unlikely – if not impossible – that the Chinese Yuan will become a reserve currency in the next few decades. He explains that in order for this to happen, China would have to either run a large and continuous current account deficit, or foreign capital inflows into China would have to be matched by Chinese capital outflows.” Why is this the case? Simply, a reserve currency must necessarily offer (foreign) institutions ample opportunity to accumulate it.

However, as Pettis points out, the structure of China’s economy is such that foreigners don’t have such an opportunity. Basically, China has run a current account/trade surplus, which has grown continuously over the last decade. During that time, its Central Bank has accumulated more than $2.5 Trillion in foreign exchange reserves in order to prevent the RMB from appreciating. Foreign Direct Investment, on the other hand, averages 2% of GDP and is declining, not to mention that “a significant share of those inflows may actually be mainland money round-tripped to take advantage of capital and tax regulations.”
For this to change, foreigners would need to have both a reason and the opportunity to hold RMB assets. The reason would come from a reversal in China’s balance of trade, and the use of RMB to pay for the excess of imports over exports, which would naturally imply a willingness of foreign entities to accept RMB. The opportunity would come in the form of deeper capital markets, a complete liberalization of the exchange rate regime (full-convertibility of the RMB), and the elimination of laws which dictate how foreigners can invest/lend in China. This would likewise an imply a Chinese government desire for greater foreign ownership.

How likely is this to happen? According to Pettis, not very. China’s financial/economic policy are designed both to favor the export sector and to promote access to cheap capital. In practice, this means that interest rates must remain low, and that there is little impetus behind the expansion of domestic consumption. Given that this has been the case for almost 30 years now, this could prove almost impossible to change. For the sake of comparison, consider that despite two “lost decades,” Japan nonetheless continues to promote its export sector and maintains interest rates near 0%.
Even if the Chinese economy continues to expand and re-balances itself in the process (a dubious possibility), Pettis estimates that it would still need to increase the rate of foreign capital inflows to almost 10% of GDP. If economic growth slows to a more sustainable level and/or it continues to run a sizable trade surplus, this figure would rise to perhaps 20%. In this case, Pettis concedes, “we are also positing…a radical change in the nature of ownership and governance in China, as well as a radical redrawing of the role of the central and local governments in the local economy.”
So there you have it. The political/economic/financial structure of China is such that it would be arithmetically very difficult to increase foreign accumulation of RMB assets to the extent that the RMB would be a contender for THE global reserve currency. For this to change, China would have to embrace the kind of reforms that go way beyond allowing the RMB to fluctuate, and strike at the very core of the CCP’s stranglehold on power in China.
If that’s what it will take for the RMB to become a fully international currency, well, then it’s probably too early to be having this conversation. Perhaps that’s why the Asian Development Bank, in a recent paper, argued in favor of modest RMB growth: “sharing from about 3% to 12% of international reserves by 2035.” This is certainly a far cry from the “10 years” declared by Russia’s finance minister and tacitly supported by Chinese economic policymakers.
The implications for the US Dollar are clear. While it’s possible that a handful of emerging currencies (Brazilian Real, Indian Rupee, Russian Ruble, etc.) will join the ranks of the international currencies, none will have enough force to significantly disrupt the status quo. When you also take into account the economic stagnation in Japan and the UK, as well as the political/fiscal problems in the EU, it’s more clear than ever that the Dollar’s share of global reserves in one (or two or three) decades will probably be only slightly diminished from its current share.

In my last post, I explored the possibility that the role of the Chinese Yuan (CNY) will expand to the point that it could rival – or even overtake – the US Dollar as the world’s preeminent reserve currency. Ultimately, I concluded that the constraints on widespread foreign ownership of CNY assets are too great, and that as a result, the Dollar’s position is safe for the time being. What about the notion that all currencies are doomed? In this case, the biggest threat to the US Dollar won’t come from China, but rather from gold.
This possibility is no longer hypothetical. James Grant (of the eponymous Grant’s Interest Rate Observer) has for many years tried to advance the case for a return to the Gold Standard. In a much-discussed editorial in the NY Times, Grant reiterated the idea that Central Banker are increasingly out of touch with economic reality, and lack any checks on their ability to print money and debase their respective currencies. Grant singles out the Fed for its non-stop quantitative easing programs, which could lead to hyper-inflation and foment additional asset bubbles. At the very least, it will cause the Dollar to lose even more of its value.
Grant’s editorial coincided perfectly (perhaps deliberately) with a proposal by Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, to reform the global economic system, with the goal of reducing economic imbalances. While most of Zoellick’s ideas are common-sense, his proposal to “build a co-operative monetary system that reflects emerging economic conditions.” and “consider employing gold as an international reference point of…currency values” stood out. While his comments created a veritable firestorm, they were grounded firmly in the reality that gold prices are rising and faith in the current fiat monetary system is declining.
The theoretical advantages and disadvantages of the gold standard have been mooted ad nauseum, and I don’t want to rehash all of them here. In sum, a gold standard is believed to be promote long-term price stability, eliminate hyper-inflation, a check on government debt issuance, and a transfer monetary power from Central Banks to the people (via the markets). Downsides include short-term price volatility, a heightened possibility of deflation, and the repudiation of modern monetary policy. Given the fact that paper currency in circulation vastly exceeds the supply of gold, a transition to the gold standard would be difficult to implement and would probably cause a substantial rise in the price of gold.
Personally, I’m not convinced that a return to the gold standard would promote economic/financial stability any more than the fiat money system. For example, just as large financial institutions dominate the current system, so they would be likely to dominate any other system, leading to the same lack of transparency and democracy. In addition, gold can also be lent out (with interest), leading to a similar propensity for asset bubbles and economic imbalances of every kind.
Just like currencies have relative value today (in terms of other currencies, commodities, assets, labor, etc.), so does gold. In that sense, saying seven units of gold is enough to buy a house is not really that different from saying it costs 10 units of paper currency to buy that same house. For instance, if Chinese producers charge 1 gold coin for their widgets while American producers charge 2, it will still result in a trade imbalance that will only correct when the Chinese standard of living catches up to the US standard of living.
Finally, gold is arbitrary. Why not a platinum standard or an oil standard? Based on the scarcity of those resources, prices would vary accordingly, much as they do under the paper currency system. Not to mention that gold is incredibly unwieldy, which means that it would be digitalized and used electronically just like paper currencies.
You could argue that this is actually a benefit of the gold standard, since it would be compatible with the current economic system, but at least it would lead to financial stability. Maybe I’m in denial like Ben Bernanke, but I just don’t see gold as the solution.  Asset bubbles inflate, and then they collapse. Economic imbalances will persist for as long as they are allowed to. If emerging market exporters get tired of receiving Dollars for their wares, then they will stop accepting it, the Dollar’s value will crash, and the US economy will have to rebalance itself. In a perfect world, there would be no irrational exuberance. In reality, the current system will persist, and life will go on.

Emerging market economies must be whining about their currencies for a good reason. Why else would they spend billions intervening in forex markets and risk provoking a global trade war?
Perhaps that explains why so many analysts are still pretty bullish. Economic growth in emerging markets is showing no signs of abating: Standard Chartered Bank “expects emerging economies to account for 68 per cent of global growth by 2030 and forecasts China’s economy to expand at an annual average rate of 6.9 per cent over that period, even as the US and Europe grow at a much slower pace of 2.5 per cent.”
Stock prices (proxied by the MSCI Emerging Markets Index) and bond prices (proxied by the JP Morgan EMBI+ Index) are still rising. Moreover, as emerging market Central Banks (continue to) hike interest rates, returns on investment (and consequently, the attraction to investors) will rise further. In fact, if credit default swap spreads are any indication, the risk of default is perceived as being lowest in emerging market economies. That means that investors are being compensated for taking less risk with greater returns! It doesn’t hurt that – as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently pointed out – investors are buoyed bu the belief that emerging market currencies will continue appreciating, providing an addition boost to returns.
It doesn’t look like the capital controls and other measures being adopted by emerging market economies will have a significant impact on slowing the inflow of foreign capital. Investors are already devising products to thwart the controls. So-called Global Bonds, for example, allow foreign investors to buy emerging market bonds without having to pay any special taxes, because they are settled in the home currency of the investor. Besides, investors with a long-term horizon can take solace that such taxes will become insignificant when allocated over a number of years.
There are, however, reasons to be cautious, In the short-term, bad news and flare-ups in risk aversion invariably hit emerging market assets hardest. Regardless of what information can be gleaned from credit default spreads, the majority of investors still associate the US with safety and emerging markets with volatility. That’s why when news of Ireland’s financial troubles broke, emerging market currencies fell across the board, and the Dollar rallied.
In addition, rising interest rates could cause bond prices to fall, and stock-market valuations may not be supported by fundamentals: “Emerging markets on average recorded economic growth of about 4 percent over the past few years while companies only recorded profit growth half of that. In China over the past decade economic growth was about 10 percent, while company earnings growth was only about 2 percent.” There is also evidence that investors and companies from emerging market countries are taking advantage of their strong currencies to invest and buy abroad, reversing the flow of capital.
Personally, I am slightly bullish with regard to emerging market currencies. The figures I quoted at the beginning of this post make it clear that we are not yet in bubble territory. In addition, even if fundamentals in emerging markets are not quite as strong as foreign investors would like to believe, they are certainly a lot stronger than in industrialized economies. Regardless of if/when the currency war is resolved, the short-term prospects for emerging market currencies remain bright.

Today, we bring you an interview with Kathy Lien, the internationally published author, Director of Currency Research of FX360.com and GFT, and co-author of BKForex Advisor, one of the few investment advisory letters focusing strictly on the FX market. She is one of the authors of Investopedia’s Forex Education section and has written for Tradingmarkets.com, the Asia Times Online, Stocks & Commodities Magazine, MarketWatch, ActiveTrader Magazine, Currency Trader, Futures Magazine and SFO. Below, Kathy shares her thoughts on fundamental analysis versus technical analysis, rate hikes in China, forex intervention, and other subjects.

Forex Blog: Can you briefly explain your approach to analyzing the forex markets. Do you prefer technical or fundamental analysis, or a combination of both?

I always use a combination of both fundamentals and technicals because I believe that the story drives the price.  Fundamentals usually set the tone for trading and set the trends that lasts for weeks, days and in some cases, even years.

Forex Blog: As head of currency research for GFT Forex, it looks like you cover most of the major currencies, as well as a handful of emerging/exotic currencies. What do you think about the macroeconomic gulf that is forming between the “G4″ economies (US, UK, Eurozone, Japan) and the emerging market economies (along the lines of debt, GDP growth, etc.)? Do you think that this division is reflected in forex markets?

I believe that the gap between the pace of growth in the G4 and the emerging markets will start to close as growth in the U.S. picks up and growth in China slows in reponse to rate hikes.

Forex Blog: You blogged recently about interest rate hikes in China and the possibility that the Chinese economy could slow down. What do you think are the implications for the forex markets?

Slower chinese growth is bearish for the commodity currencies because it means Chinese demand could slow.

Forex Blog: In a recent post entitled, “Dollar: 3 reasons Behind the Rally,” you suggested that the Fed is skeptical that its QE2 program will succeed in stimulating the economy. Can you elaborate on why you think this will benefit the Dollar?

Speculation about QE was the main driver behind the dollar’s weakness in September.  If the Fed is skeptical about the effectiveness of QE, they are more likely to pare back the program prematurely which would be dollar positive because it is one step closer to a rate hike.

Forex Blog: It has been said that the Fed is caught in a lose-lose situation, whereby its QE2 will fail and the US economy will drift back into recession or it will succeed in invigorating the economy and stoking inflation. Do you share this interpretation?

I don’t think I agree.  The Fed doesn’t have much of a choice right now and options for stimulating the economy are limited. Core Producer prices declined in October which shows that deflation is just as much of a risk as inflation.  The dollar will stabilize when the U.S. economy and U.S. data improves which is the Fed’s top priority.

Forex Blog: In a comparison of the Australian and Canadian Dollars, you asserted that while both countries’ economies are based around commodities, “At the end of the day however it is important to remember that Canada is not Australia.” With this in mind, can you  elaborate on why the Aussie has a better chance of trading above parity (with the US Dollar) than the Loonie?

Because Australia benefits from Chinese demand and global growth while Canada is mostly sensitive to U.S. growth.  The RBA is still considering more rate hikes while the BoC has made it clear that they have intentions of tightening monetary policy in the near term.

Forex Blog: A discussion of the major themes in forex markets wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the ongoing currency wars. First of all, do you think that the label “currency war” is fair? Do you think that most countries’ Central Banks will continue to intervene on behalf of their respective currencies, and do you think they will succeed in  preventing them from rising further?

I think if the dollar continues to fall, they will have no choice but to defend their currencies.

Forex Blog: What is your advice for (forex) investors that want to beat the market during these uncertain times?

The Dollar is Crashing! The Dollar is Crashing! Such is the perennial claim of doomsday predictors, conspiracy theorists, gold bugs, etc. Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I often come to the defense of the Dollar. Given that it has risen by more than 5% over the last month and is currently hovering around its average value of the last five years, I think this position is worth reiterating.
Since the unveiling of QE2, however, the Dollar has rallied strongly. On the one hand, most economists remains skeptical that it will do much to lift GDP and boost employment. However, a parallel thread holds that this was only the ostensible motive for QE2, and that the real motive was to prevent the outbreak of another financial crisis and consequent economic downturn. Given that housing prices are headed downward and banks’ balance sheets are still weak, the Fed’s move reads more like a preemptive move to further shore up the financial system than an economic stimulus program.
At the very least, this probably won’t hurt the Dollar, and certainly not to the extent that the market had priced in prior to QE2. While the stock market rally has stalled, the rise in Treasury Yields has not. The 10-Year rate is close to 3% for the first time in months, making it more attractive (and less costly) to hold capital in Dollar-denominated assets. The Dollar was also helped by the release of GDP data for Q3, during which the US economy beat expectations and grew by 2.5%.
To be sure, there may be other reasons for the Dollar’s rally, namely the growing turmoil in the EU. Evidence is mounting that the EU sovereign debt crisis is spreading, which has spurred both an increase in investor risk aversion and a decline in the Euro. Still, market chatter seems to be focusing less on the Dollar as safe-haven and more on the fact that the Dollar was merely oversold.
On a purchasing power parity (ppp) basis, the Dollar is starting to look cheap. If the opinions of Europeans, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese tourists are to be taken at face value, the US is cheaper than it has been for years. As one commentator summarized, “If the PPP figures are right, the U.S. dollar has more upside than the negative sentiment around it would indicate. If the greenback were to decline further, it would have to do so from an already undervalued situation.”

South Korea was in the midst of figuring out what to do with its appreciating Won when disaster struck, in the form of an unprovoked attack from North Korea. Combined with a worsening of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, the news was enough to send the Won down 5% over the course of a couple weeks. From the standpoint of managing its currency, it looks like the (distant) prospect of war is actually a blessing in disguise.
Over the last decade, South Korea has been one of the world’s largest serial interveners in currency markets. Over the last two years alone, as evidenced by the growth in its foreign exchange reserves, it has spent more than $100 Billion defending the Won. As the so-called currency war has intensified, so, too has the Bank of Korea intensified its efforts to hold down the Won, having spent more than $20 Billion since July towards this effort.

You could say then that South Korea’s hosting of the G20 Summit on November 15 put it in a slightly awkward position. Still, it was determined to make clear that it would continue to take steps to combat the rise in the Won. According to Shin Hyun-song, the special economic advisor to President Lee Myung-bak, “This means that countries can intervene in the currency market when the market is in disorder and when there is a gap between the market rate and underlying economic fundamentals.” Of course, fundamentals is hardly an objective notion in this case.
While the G20 predictably called on participants to “move toward a market-driven exchange rate system and to refrain from competitive devaluations,” it nonetheless also guided them towards “implementing policy tools for bringing excessive external imbalances down to sustainable levels.” The underlying message is that certain countries should curtail their reliance on exports and try to achieve more balanced growth.
Naturally, South Korea’s interpretation was that while direct intervention is now taboo, taxes and other capital controls are sanctioned. Thus, it has been reported that “the Korean government has been gauging its timing to launch further measures to tighten the financial market and protect it from volatile global capital movement..bank levies on non-deposit liabilities and taxes on foreign purchases of government bonds are both possible options.”
As I said, though, the South Korea now has some breathing room. Its Won depreciated rapidly in the minutes after the shelling of Yeonpyeong island, which killed four and wounded 20, was first reported. The fact that the US government immediately pledged its support and solidarity (by sending over an aircraft carrier) is not instilling confidence. One analyst indicated, “We see a strong chance of further Korean won weakness in the days ahead as more details emerge, particularly if public opinion in South Korea puts pressure on the government there to take a stronger stance.”
Even before this episode, the EU sovereign debt crisis had spread to Ireland, and put Spain and Portugal at risk, too. As a result, the Dollar-as-safe-haven mindset re-emerged, and spurred some capital movement back to the US. In this context, the drama with North Korea only exacerbated the climate of risk aversion.
Ultimately, both the EU fiscal crisis and the tensions with North Korea will subside, which should cause the Won to resume its rise. (In fact, Korean exporters have come to view this as inevitable, and have taken advantage of the relatively favorable exchange rate to repatriate overseas earnings). At this point, you can expect the Bank of Korea to begin implementing capital controls and continue the face-off with currency markets.

All things considered, Asian currencies have had an okay 2010 (and there’s still another month to go). After a modest first half, they started to rise in unison in June, and several are poised to finish the year 10% higher than where they began. While the last few weeks have seen a slight pullback, there is cause for cautious optimism in 2011.
When pressed for actual reasons, investors can glibly rattle off such strengths as high growth and low debt and wax bullish about the emerging market ‘story,’ but ultimately they are chasing yield, asset appreciation, and strengthening exchange rates. It doesn’t matter that P/E ratios for (Asian) emerging market stocks are significantly higher than in industrialized economies, or that bond prices are destined to decline as soon as (Asian) emerging market Central Banks begin lifting interest rates, or that Purchase Power Parity (PPP) already suggests that some of these currencies are already fairly valued. In a nutshell, they continue to pour money into Asia because that’s what everyone else seems to be doing.
Personally, I think that kind of mentality should inspire caution in even the most bullish of investors. It suggests that if bubbles haven’t already formed in emerging markets, they probably will soon, since there’s no way that GDP growth will be large enough to absorb the continuous inflow of capital. According to the Financial Times, “Data suggest that emerging market mutual funds, including those invested in Asian markets, have received about 10 per cent of their assets in additional flows over the past four to five months.” Meanwhile, a not-insignificant portion of the $600 Billion Fed QE2 program could find its way into Asia, exacerbating this trend.
As a bona fide fundamental analyst, it pains me to say that emerging market Asian currencies can expect some (modest) appreciation over the next year, barring any serious changes to the EU fiscal and global economic situations. It seems that capital will continue to pour into Asia, which – rather than fundamentals – will continue to dictate performance.

Only last month, the Euro was on top of the forex markets. Especially relative to its “G4″ competitors (Dollar, Yen, Pound) – all of which are plagued by economic uncertainty and loose monetary policies – the Euro was seen as a smart bet. In the last few weeks, however, the EU sovereign debt crisis resurfaced, and the Euro has plunged, losing 7.5% of its value against the Dollar. As a result, investors have pulled an about-face: instead of banking on the European Central Bank (ECB) to buoy the Euro through monetary restraint, they are now counting on it to hold the Euro together by adopting the same tactics as its counterparts.
Before I explain what I mean here, I’d like to offer an update on the EU fiscal situation. In the last week, there were a handful of developments. First, Ireland accepted a tentative €85 Billion in aid from the EU/IMF, officially joining the ranks of an infamous club that also includes Greece. Still, it wasn’t clear whether such a bailout would also include Irish banks, which are seen as perhaps in deeper trouble than the Irish government. As a result, investors were unmoved, and S&P moved ahead with a cut to Ireland’s sovereign credit rating.

Naturally, rumors began to circulate that Portugal was also preparing a formal bailout request. Said one trader, “In Portugal the kind of language you’re hearing is similar to what you heard in Ireland a few weeks ago.” Despite promises to the contrary, Portugal’s budget deficit has widened in 2010. Interest in its most recent bond issue was healthy, but at the highest interest rate since the Euro was introduced in 1999 and more than .5% higher than last month.
Ultimately, bailouts of Greece, Ireland, and Portugal can be managed. It is a default and/or preemptive rescue of Spain – the other PIGS member – that worries investors. Its economy represents more than 11% of the EU and any hiccup would seriously shake the foundations of the Euro: “It may well be that we are approaching the endgame of this part of the crisis as Spain is of such importance that one can only imagine that the EU will regard it as the line in the sand that cannot be crossed.” While Spain is working hard to cut its budget deficit to a still-stratospheric 9.3% in 2010, investors have balked. As a result, interest rates in its bonds have surged to a post-Euro high (relative to German bonds), and credit default swap spreads (which insure against the risk of default) have risen substantially.
The problem with the EU sovereign debt crisis – like most credit crises, for that matter – is that they tend to be self-fulfilling. As investors begin to doubt the ability of institutions (governmental and otherwise) to service their debts, they naturally demand greater compensation for the (perceived) increase in risk. This further inhibits that institution’s ability to repay its loans, which only makes funding more difficult to attract, and so on.
It is ironic on multiple levels then that even as investors abandon the debt of EU member countries, they are hoping that the ECB steps in to fill the void they create. As I alluded to the title of this post, this marks a stunning about-face from only a few months ago, when the Euro was rising against the Dollar because of the ECB’s commitment to a responsible monetary policy. Nowadays, the Euro rallies only on news that the ECB is maintaining or expanding its intervention. For example, the Irish banking sector is “increasingly more reliant on the ECB funding,” and as a result, “The euro edged up…as the European Central Bank continued buying Portuguese and Irish government bonds.”
Based on this change in investor mentality, it seems unlikely that the Euro will recover its losses anytime soon. Of course, the ECB has nearly unlimited resources at its disposal. German central bank chief Axel Weber declared confidently that, “An attack on the euro has no chance of succeeding.” However, the ECB can never hope to fully supplant the important role played by private capital, and besides, “What we are experiencing at present is not a speculative attack but a justified depreciation due to unsolved problems.”
There are still plenty of optimists who believe that the fear will soon die down and that higher interest rates will attract some of the yield-hungry investors that are currently focused on emerging markets. Goldman Sachs forecast “the euro will rise to $1.50 by year-end 2011 as big economies in the area continue expanding.”
I think the most realistic assessment is somewhere in between. On the one hand, it seems unlikely that the Spain will default on its debt at anytime in the near future or that the Euro will cease to exist. On the other hand, the fact that investors now see the ECB as a savior for following in the footsteps of the Fed implies that there is no reason for investors to buy the Euro against the US Dollar.

As one strategist recently put it, we seem to be witnessing Deja Vu in the forex markets. The US Dollar in general, and the USD/EUR currency pair in particular, are behaving exactly the same as one year ago: “The greenback rose back then…on a combination of strong U.S. November jobs numbers…and the triple downgrades of Greece later in the month by Fitch, S&P and Moodys.” This time around, a similar combination of US optimism and EU pessimism are once again buoying the Dollar.

It all started about a month ago, when the EU sovereign debt crisis flared up again in the EU. Initially, investors were focused on the fiscal plight of Ireland, but quickly became nervous about the possibility that the crisis would spread to Portugal and even Spain, which would tax the finances/ability of the EU and put extreme pressure on the European Monetary Union (EMU). With this in mind, investors have fled the Euro, sending it down more than 7% – from peak to trough – against the Dollar.
The skirmish between North and South Korea further added to the climate of heightened risk, and reinforced the position of the Dollar as the world’s safest currency, ahead of even the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen: “Recent events just reinforce the underlying message that during times of turmoil, almost no matter what the source, the U.S. dollar is seen as a safe harbor for investors.” Basically, there is still nothing that can compare to US Treasury securities in terms of liquidity and security. In fact, demand for Dollars has become so acute in recent weeks that some analysts are already bracing for the (still-distant) possibility of another Dollar shortage, like the one that plagued the markets following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. In short, “The strong dollar thirst linked to dollar-funding needs is, as usual, supporting the dollar.”
Meanwhile, the markets are becoming less pessimistic about the impact of the Fed’s $600 Billion expansion of its Quantitative Easing Program (QE2) and consequently more optimistic about US growth prospects. Even before the drama in the EU and Korea, investors had already started to adjust their positions. Since mid-October, “Futures traders have slashed bets for a decline in the dollar against the euro, yen, Australian dollar, and Swiss franc, data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Assn. show…Strategist forecasts for the dollar to weaken have all but disappeared.”
While the employment picture remains a dim spot, the economy is still growing. In a recent televised interview, Ben Bernanke declared that, “Another recession appeared unlikely.” He also added that QE3 is also a possibility if banks continue to hoard capital, eroding the effectiveness of QE2. The positive reaction of forex markets shows that investors are less concerned about inflation and more focused on whether QE2 will facilitate economic growth. It “absolutely can be dollar-positive if the markets decide that [it is] going to be part of the package that brings about a revival in economic growth,” summarized one analyst.

If you view the performance of the Russian Ruble over the last few years, it’s clear that it never recovered from the rapid depreciation that took place during the height of the credit crisis. Given that nearly every other emerging market currency is either closing in on or has already breached its pre-credit crisis level, there must be something holding down the Ruble.
Next, the real returns of investing in Russia are currently negative. Russia’s Central Bank (Bank Rossii) continues to maintain the benchmark refinancing rate at a record-low 7.75%, and the 10-year yield on Russian bonds is even lower, at ~5%. This would seem to compare favorably with the 2.75% yield on comparable US Treasury Securities until you account for inflation, which is projected to top 8% for the year. While Ruble-denominated bonds pay a higher interest rate (7.75%), they also carry higher risk. For that reason, Russian yields and credit default swap spreads (which insure against default) are much higher in Russia than in other BRIC countries.
Meanwhile, Russian companies are taking advantage of low borrowing rates to engage in a reverse carry trade and invest in western countries: “Russian companies have announced $27 billion of foreign purchases this quarter, the most since the third quarter of 2008 and triple the amount in the last three-month period.” Finally, the reemergence of the EU fiscal crisis, combined with the skirmish in Korea has spurred a decrease in risk appetite. As one analyst summarized, “The whole of the emerging markets are on the back-foot at the moment and the ruble is no exception…it’s definitely risk off at the moment.”
As a result, Bank Rossii finds itself in a somewhat unique position among Central Banks of having to try to prop up its currency. Technically, the Rouble is pegged to a basket (consisting of 55% Dollars and 45% Euros), but pressure on it has been so intense that the range in which it is permitted to trade has been adjusted downward five times since the middle of October. To prevent it from declining further, Bank Rossii has been dipping into its $450 Billion stock of forex reserves, and selling foreign currency at the rate of $150 million per day. It insists that it will “allow” the Rouble to appreciate in 2011 in order to fight inflation, but that obviously depends on whether the current account shifts back to surplus.
What do investors think? According to a Bloomberg survey of currency analyst, “The Ruble will strengthen 4 percent versus the basket by the end of the first quarter of 2011. On the other hand, “Options traders are still bearish on the ruble with the currency’s one-week risk reversal rate — the premium of put options over calls — at 1.25 percent for the tenth straight day, from 0.5 percent at the end of October.” Non-deliverable forward contracts, meanwhile, reflect a weaker Ruble three months from now.
If the Bank Rosii fulfills analysts’ expectations and hikes rates in March, it will be step towards reinvigorating investor interest in Russia. More importantly, however, is that inflation is brought under control. Until that happens, the Ruble will remain the main standout in a sea of emerging market currencies that otherwise continues to outperform.

After a stellar 2009, the Canadian Dollar (“Loonie”) has had a relatively lackluster 2010 against the Dollar, rising by only 3-4%. As the Loonie has inched (back) towards parity, it has encountered significant resistance. I think there is reason to believe that the currency has reached its limit, and that there are little prospects for further appreciation for at least the first half of 2011.
The currency has risen so fast over the last couple years that Canada has run a trade deficit for six consecutive months, including a record $2.5 Billion in July. (In some ways, doesn’t this prove that economic imbalances will ultimately self-correct?!). In addition, to say that Canadian export sector is heavily reliant on the US would be an understatement: “The U.S. bought 70 percent of Canada’s exports in October, down from 75 percent in June, and a record of about 85 percent in 2001.” It’s no wonder that Canadian economic officials have defended the Fed’s QE2 monetary easing program; they know that Canada’s economic health is contingent on a strong US economy.
As for how fluctuations in risk affect the Loonie, it’s not clear. On two separate occasions, the WSJ reported first that “With investors more willing to take on riskier assets than they were the day before, the Canadian dollar was able to move sharply higher,” and then that “Canada’s relatively strong fiscal and economic fundamentals attract safe-haven flows when investors are fleeing from risk.” What a blatant contradiction if there ever was one! Personally, I think that Canada’s economic structure and relatively high debt levels disqualify the Loonie from consideration as a safe-haven currency. That being said, it has notched some impressive gains against other non-safe haven currencies.
If not for its low interest rates, nobody would even mention it in the same breath as the US Dollar or Japanese Yen. Speaking of low rates, the Bank of Canada voted last week to keep its benchmark interest rate on hold at 1% and indicated that it won’t consider raising them for quite some time. Said Central Bank Governor Mark Carney, “There are limits to the divergence that there can be between Canada and the United States.” In other words, the BOC probably won’t hike rates until the Fed does, at which point there will be very little basis for buying the Loonie over the US Dollar.
Analysts tend to agree with this assessment: “The loonie will trade at parity by the end of March and weaken to C$1.01 per dollar through the end of third-quarter 2011, according to…a Bloomberg survey: ‘We still think the Canadian dollar will continue to hover around here and test parity; we don’t think the Canadian dollar is going to back up against the U.S. dollar until the new year.’ Interestingly enough, Canadian investment advisers echo this sentiment: “We’re saying to clients that the Canadian dollar is strong right now, so buying U.S. assets is cheaper than it would be if the dollar were weak.”

It seems the gods of the forex market read my previous post on the Japanese Yen, in which I puzzled over the currency’s appreciation in the face of contradictory economic and financial factors. Since then, the Yen’s 6-month, 15% appreciation (against the US Dollar) has arrested. It has retreated from the brink of record highs, and undergone the most significant correction since March of this year. Have investors come to their senses, or what?!

You certainly can’t give the Bank of Japan (BOJ) any credit. Aside from its single-day $25 Billion intervention in September, it hasn’t entered the forex markets. In fact, it has already repaid the funds lent to it by the Ministry of Finance, which suggests that it doesn’t have any intention to replicate its earlier intervention in the immediate future, regardless of where the Yen moves.
Perhaps the BOJ foresaw the current correction in the Yen, which was probably inevitable in some ways. After all, Japanese interest rates – while gradually rising – still remain at levels that are unattractive to investors. While US short-term rates are low, long-term rates are more than 1.5% higher than their Japanese counterparts. When you factor in that Japan’s fiscal condition is worse than the US, there is really very little reason, in this aspect, to prefer Japan. As one analyst summarized, “The whole interest-rate differential argument is turning out to be dollar supportive, at least in the near term.”
The same is true for risk-averse capital. For reasons of liquidity and psychology, the Japanese Yen will continue to be a safe-haven destination in times of distress. Still, it’s hardly superior to the Dollar, in this sense. Inflation is slowly emerging (or at least, the risk of deflation is slowly abating) in Japan, and it could conceivably reach 1% this year if the Bank of Japan has its way. Its proposed 35 trillion yen ($419 billion) of asset purchases dwarfs the comparable Federal Reserve Bank’s QE2 program (in relative terms) and contradicts the notion that the Yen is the best store of value.
For the rest of the year, how the Yen performs will depend largely on investor risk-appetite. If risk aversion predominates, then the Yen should hold its value. In addition, it’s worth pointing out that even as the Yen has fallen against the Dollar, it has appreciated against the Euro, and remained flat against a handful of other currencies. Against the US Dollar, however, I still don’t see any reason for why the Yen should trade below 85, and I expect the correction will continue to unfold.

Based on nominal exchange rates, the Chinese Yuan has appreciated by a modest 2% against the US Dollar since the month of September (when the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) adjusted the currency peg for the first time in nearly two years). If you take inflation into account, however, the Chinese Yuan has risen by much more. In fact, if current trends persist, the Chinese Yuan exchange rate controversy might resolve itself.

Demands from the international community for China to appreciate its currency hinge on two related arguments. The first is that at its current level, the artificially low exchange has allowed China to build up a massive trade surplus. The second is that Chinese prices seem to be lower than they should be (when quoted in other currencies), and the economic principle of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) suggests that for this discrepancy to be eliminated, the Chinese Yuan must rise.
As it turns out, both of these claims are more problematic than they would appear. For example, China’s official trade surplus is already massive, and is steadily increasing. For 2010, it will probably near $200 Billion. However, it turns out that majority of that surplus is being captured by foreign-funded companies: “Their 112.5-billion U.S.-dollar surplus accounts for 66 percent of China’s total surplus over the past 11 months.”
In addition, trade statistics are calculated in such a way that the country that assembles the finished product gets credit for the full export value of that product. By looking specifically at Apple’s popular iPhone, researchers calculated that the product officially contributed $2 Billion to the US trade deficit with China. When the nuances of the iPhone’s supply chain are taken into account, that figure swings to a surplus of $48 million. In both of these cases, the fact that these products are manufactured in China doesn’t detract from US GDP (though it probably does cost the US jobs). Hence, the US probably isn’t hurting as much from the weak RMB to the extent that some lobbyists insist.

As for inflation, the official rate is now 5.1% on an annualized basis. Even if we accept this (and living in China, I can tell you that the actual rate is much, much higher), that means that the value of other currencies is eroding at a much faster rate than is implied by official exchange rates. That’s because a currency is only worth its purchasing power; as prices and wages in China rise, the purchasing power of the US Dollar (and other currencies) falls.
The Chinese government is trying to address the problem in the form of price controls and mandated increases in supply, but it is still reluctant to rein in inflation using conventional monetary policy measures. M2 money supply in China is increasing at a rate of 20% a year, the majority of which is being spent on another boom in fixed asset investment. While the PBOC has responded by increasing the required reserve ratio of Chinese banks, it remains reluctant to raise interest rates lest it contribute to further inflows of “hot money” on more upward pressure on the Yuan. As a result, the consensus among economists is that inflation will continue rising unabated: “We see a strong chance of underlying price pressures continuing to build over the medium-term.”

It has been said before, but now I think it’s official: retail forex has entered the mainstream. In the month of December, two retail forex brokerages – Forex Capital Markets (FXCM) and Gain Capital Holdings (GCAP) – went public on the New York stock exchange. Combined with some juicy information revealed in their regulatory filings, I think this event raises some interesting questions about the future of forex.
Some background: both FXCM and Gain Capital operate trading platforms and news/analysis websites (DailyFX.com and Forex.com, respectively). FXCM has a current market capitalization of $850 million, compared to $250 million for Gain Capital. The former earned net income of $98 million last year on revenue of $339 million, and it has 135,000 active clients. The latter earned $36 million net income on $188 million revenue, and its client base totals 52,000. (For the sake of comparison, consider that ETrade has more  than $4 million and its ttm revenues exceeded $2.5 Billion).
If you do some simple arithmetic, you will discover that revenue per account is substantially higher for forex brokers than for stock brokers: $2,500/account for  FXCM versus $100-200 that I’ve been told is standard for retail stock brokers. Of course, some of that disparity is natural, given that the average forex account-holder trades at a higher frequency and higher volume than the average stock investor, who apparently only makes one round-trip trade per month, on average. However, the bulk of that discrepancy is probably due to a lack of transparency/competition.
Although information on average account size was not released, it nonetheless stands to reason that a significant portion of forex account-holder equity is being “transferred” to brokers every year. (Interestingly, FXCM loses money on the majority of its accounts.  Accounts worth more than $10K – which presumably do the most trading – generate the most revenue, and yet more than half of them are still unprofitable for FXCM).
I think this raises some serious questions about transparency in forex commissions. While other brokers make money from the bid/ask spread (which also suffers from a lack of transparency) and by taking offsetting positions, FXCM boasts that it “makes an identical amount of money in the form of pip markups (which are really commissions) regardless of whether the customer made or lost money on the account.” Basically, FXCM matches up buyers/sellers with banks and financial institutions, and takes a cut for facilitating the transaction. While this is somewhat less opaque than filling orders directly for customers, the fact that it doesn’t disclose its commissions should be cause for concern. For the sake of comparison, consider that when you buy/sell stock, the commission that you pay the broker is clearly disclosed.
Someone recently asked me if trading commissions (i.e. spreads) in forex were fair/stable, and in the context of this data, I think it shows that there are is still room for commissions to fall. As the number of retail forex traders grows, you would expect spreads to tighten further, and profit/account to decline from the current level of $700+ per year.
Since both FXCM and Gain Capital are now public companies, they will be subject to increased scrutiny and regulatory oversight, and will henceforth be required to make frequent disclosures. If Oanda and other top-tier brokers accede to competitive pressures and also go public, the result should be increased transparency for the industry and better pricing for traders. In short, daily volume figures ($4 Trillion/day) notwithstanding, retail forex trading still has a ways to go before it can really be compared to retail stock trading.

Today, we bring you an interview with Boris Schlossberg, director of currency research at GFT Forex, co-founder of BK Forex Advisors, and co-contributor to FX360. He is also a weekly contributor to CNBC’s Squawk Box and a regular commentator for Bloomberg radio and television. His daily currency research is widely quoted and appears in numerous newspapers worldwide. He is the author of Technical Analysis of the Currency Market (2006) and Millionaire Traders (2007). Below, Mr. Schlossberg shares his thoughts on risk management, leverage, currency wars, and other assorted topics.

Forex Blog: Can you briefly explain your approach to analyzing the forex markets. Do you prefer technical or fundamental analysis, or a combination of both?

I am primarily a fundamentally driven trader but I use price action to inform my trades as well, Specifically I focus on price action around the 00 levels to see if there is support/resistance there.

Forex Blog: How is your experiment to ignore real-time P&L going? Have you found that it has confirmed your belief in the Heisenberg principle and led to increased success in trading?

I have not had much of a chance to pursue that yet given the holidays, but I think just writing about the phenomena helped me to feel less pressured about the intra-day swing in my P&L.

Forex Blog: I was intrigued by your assertion that over the long-term, the tortoise may beat the hare in forex trading. What are the practical implications of this notion? Do you think it supports using fundamental analysis and adopting a more long-term approach to trading?

No the key is that risk control is EVERYTHING. As long as you can contain your losses, if you hang around the market long enough you will be able to catch positive swings regardless of whether you trade fundamentally or technically.

Forex Blog: When the Euro rallied in the beginning of the summer, a number of forex commentators (myself included) declared a paradigm shift, whereby investors would stop worrying about risk and instead focus on the fundamentals. Ultimately, this shift never materialized, and the Euro appears to have resumed its decline. What is your assessment of the Euro’s recent performance, and what can we expect for the immediate future?

Everybody hates the euro and there are certainly many reasons to do so, but I think that China will no allow the EZ to fracture and if that’s the case then euro may have a chance to bounce in 2011. My favorite way to play that is long EURGBP.

Forex Blog: You blogged recently about an encounter with an aspiring forex trader, in which you advised him to “There is only one way [to succeed in forex trading]. You open an account and just trade.” That being said, are there any practical tips that you can offer to novice forex traders?

There is no substitute for experience. They say you need 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill and I think that’s a fair metric to use.

Forex Blog:  It has been said that the Fed is caught in a lose-lose situation, whereby its QE2 will fail and the US economy will drift back into recession or it will succeed in invigorating the economy and stoking inflation. Do you share this interpretation?

No. There is deflation in US – not inflation. The Fed is doing is the only thing it can and so far it appears to have helped the economy.

Forex Blog: I agree with your assessment that high levels of dangerous leverage (~50:1) are a recipe for disaster. Do you support the recent regulatory changes that effectively cap the maximum amount of leverage on forex trades? Is there a general level of leverage that you think is acceptable, or is it specific to each trade?

Yes I agree with regulation. I myself trade with 3:1 leverage and never exceed 10:1.

Forex Blog: As you pointed out, “The Psychology of Round Numbers” is a phenomenon that is observable on all aspects of life in which numbers are involved. As far as forex is concerned, have you observed that round numbers are almost always a source of either support or resistance? How can traders predict whether a currency pair will stop at a given (round number) level or surge through?

If we could predict that with certainty we would never have to work again . That having been said I watch those levels very carefully and I see them at play every single day both as magnets for stop runs and as targets for turn trades against the trend.

Forex Blog: A discussion of the major themes in forex markets wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the ongoing currency wars. First of all, do you think that the label “currency war” is fair? Do you think that most countries’ Central Banks will continue to intervene on behalf of their respective currencies, and do you think they will succeed in  preventing them from rising further?

I think intervention is much more ingrained in Asia where export driven economies depend on low exchange rates. In the long run its a horrible strategy because it will inevitably lead to anti-competitive behavior. (Look how well Germany, Switzerland and Netherlands perform despite high exchange rates).

Forex Blog: What is your advice for (forex) investors that want to beat the market during these uncertain times?

Focus on one strategy that you are comfortable with and refine it continuously.