According to Wikipedia:
“The Game (always capitalized) is a name given to the football game between Harvard University and Yale University. As of 2008, the Harvard Crimson and Yale Bulldogs have met 125 times beginning in 1875, when American football was evolving from rugby. The Harvard-Yale game is played in November at the end of the football season, and the venue alternates between Harvard Stadium and the Yale Bowl. As of 2008, Yale leads the series 65-52-8. The 2009 Game will take place on November 21, 2009.”
The culmination of the college football season begins this weekend with games between traditional rivals. For the hockey heads at Research Edge, that means the Yale-Harvard football game. While these two teams are not as competitive as they were back in the 50s and 60s with the likes of Brian Downling, Calvin Hill, and Hank Higdon, it should be a competitive battle and great day, nonetheless.
The newest member of our team, Darius “Sunny D” Dale, is a former offensive lineman for the Bulldogs. Unfortunately, Yale’s gridiron loss is our gain. And while the loss of stalwart Dale has led to some offensive line issues this season for the team, Sunny D has been blocking and tackling very effectively within the confines of 111 Whitney. In fact, since Sunny D joined our team, Brian McGough hasn’t been sacked once!
Ahead of this weekend, and as a sign of school pride, I wanted to highlight a couple of quotes from two famous Yale practioners of the dark science of economics. The first, Irving Fisher, is of course a well known academic whose theories are finally coming back into vogue well after his death. The other would probably not call himself an economist, but as one of the most successful short seller of the modern era, we think Jim Chanos is likely worthy to be held in the same category as some of the great economists of our times.
In a speech he gave to the Virginia Value Investing Conference titled, “Ten Lessons From The Financial Crisis That Investors Will Soon Forget (If They Haven’t Already!”, Chanos made some adroit points. We wanted to highlight a few:
1. Borrowing Short and Lending Long is Still a Bad Idea – Duration gaps create a mismatched book and short term funding can always be rolled, except in a credit crisis.
2. Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist – State sponsored entities are given an unfair advantage and implied government backstop encourages excessive risk taking.
3. Capitalism on the Upside and Socialism on the Downside is a Bad Policy – Hands off regulation, until Wall Street needs a hand. All bailouts are not created equal.
4. Quantitative Easing (‘Helicopter Finance’) Has a Cost – Zombie banks financed with cheap money only prolong the problems.
5. Insurance Without Reserves is Not Insurance – Owning hedges does not mean you are hedged as there is counter party risk.
Back on March 5, 2009, we wrote a note titled, “Eye On The Fish: Irving Fisher Revisited”. In that note we wrote:
“Fisher wrote in “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions” that there are two dominant factors in great booms and depressions, “namely over-indebtedness to start with and deflation following soon thereafter.” A recent report by the Bank Credit Analyst, suggested that current non-financial institution debt in the U.S. is at 190% of GDP versus 160% just prior to the start of the Great Depression. While we haven’t stress tested the 190% number, we do believe that it is directionally correct. As Fisher goes on to write, while “over-investment and over-speculation are often important; they would have far less serious results were they not conducted with borrowed money.” Thus the high debt level only serves to amplify the typical business cycle.
Many of our clients have asked about our thesis that the US dollar needs to go down for the stock market to go up. Partially this is driven by observations. We use price rule as a primary factor in much of our work and we have observed that the market and the dollar are inversely correlated, or have been for the last 3+ months. The derivative question is obviously, why is this so? In our view, it is that the market understands basic Fisher economics. Specifically, we have an emerging debt asset / imbalance that can only be solved by re-flating assets.”
Fast forward to November 20th, 2009 (today), and it’s safe to assume that ‘He Who Sees No Bubbles’ (Bernanke) and the Squirrel Hunter (Geithner) have inflated us out of the so called Depression. Unfortunately, while assets are being inflated as Fisher would have recommended, the debt issue is only accelerating. The Fed’s balance sheet liabilities, which is a broad gauge of its lending to the financial system, expanded to $2.19 trillion this week, which is the highest since December 31st, 2008. Most concerning, the Fed now holds $847 billion in mortgage backed securities. Yikes!
Enjoy the weekend. Go Bulldogs!
Daryl G. Jones
Get The Macro Show and the Early Look now for only $29.95/month – a savings of 57% – with the Hedgeye Student Discount! In addition to those daily macro insights, you'll receive exclusive content tailor-made to augment what you learn in the classroom. Must be a current college or university student to qualify.
Yesterday, CAKE’s CFO Doug Benn made what I thought were some interesting comments about restaurant acquisitions in response to a question at an investor conference. When reading Mr. Benn’s response below, it is important to remember that he is speaking from experience as he was the CFO of RARE when it was acquired by Darden in October 2007.
Question: Strategically how does the company think about acquisitions going forward, does that become a more important element over the next couple of years or...
Answer: I think capital allocation is the big question for us, I think next year it’s going to be rather easy, we have $125 million with debt, there is a guaranteed result when you pay down your debt, you know exactly what's going to happen, and then after that there is only the limited number of things that you can do. The company is going to generate substantial free cash flow, acquisitions would be something that we would consider, but be very careful about generally in our industry, maybe in a lot of industries, but certainly in the restaurant business, the acquirer is not the one that makes well in this acquisition, so you got to be very careful, you're either buying a company that is in trouble when you have to fix it and you got a good deal on it or you're potentially overpaying for something that's working very well. It's something that we would look at, but not something that's imminent at all.
I understand that this was merely an off-the-cuff remark and I may be reading too deeply into his comments, but I find this response to be somewhat telling of how Mr. Benn feels about RARE’s decision to sell out to Darden and subsequently, how he feels about Darden now. He says that the “acquirer is not the one that makes well,” which in my scenario would be Darden. He does not say it but that might imply that it is the acquired company that makes out well in the deal, which again, in my scenario points to RARE. In selling to Darden, RARE received a premium multiple just as trends at LongHorn were beginning to soften. Trends have obviously deteriorated further since then so what did Darden get out of the deal?
Again, this is just my interpretation of what he was saying! But, I do think Mr. Benn makes a valid point. Restaurant acquisitions/mergers do not typically make a lot of sense because like he said, companies are often forced to overpay for assets or buy underperforming assets that require a lot of money to fix (if they can be fixed at all).
Regarding CAKE, I think Mr. Benn’s less than positive view of restaurant “acquirers” means we don’t have to worry about the company making any acquisitions any time soon. Instead, CAKE’s future earnings growth will come from a return to positive same-store sales growth and new unit growth as he outlined in his presentation yesterday. This growth plan may not bring about immediate results as it relies on increased consumer spending and job growth, but I think an acquisition would only complicate matters both in the near-term and long-term.
No matter where you go, there that stubborn ole inflation data is. ..
‘He Who Sees No Bubbles’ (Bernanke) will continue to have to face both pending inflation data and continued populist pressures to arrest it.
A lot of people are asking me why the US Dollar has strengthened in the last few days. While it has been ignored by Bernanke, that certainly doesn’t mean this continued REFLATION in the CPI data ceases to exist.
In the chart below, Matt Hedrick and I show what we have been calling for – a Reflation Rotation in the reported Consumer Price Inflation data. The green arrow is what sucked Bernanke into this Great Depressionista narrative. The red arrow is how wrong he has been in forecasting The New Reality. Burning the Buck is, in the end, inflationary. Here are the facts:
- October CPI was reported sequentially higher than last month by +0.3%
- October CPI was reported at -0.2% year-over-year
- July CPI remains the low for this cycle of reported “deflation” at -2.1% (hardly a Great Depression in prices)
Notwithstanding that the calculation for America CPI is ridiculous (they have changed it 9x since 1996), if I accept the Federal Government’s word for it, I still see a rotation from deflation to inflation, using their numbers!
On the margin, for those who are not paid to be willfully blind, this chart is hawkish.
On the margin, hawkish inflation data is bullish for the US Dollar as ‘He Who Sees No Bubbles’ claims to be “data dependent.”
Keith R. McCullough
Chief Executive Officer
It doesn’t take a whole heck of a lot to get REFLATION traders nervous about their positions does it?
If you didn’t know that the inverse correlation between US dollars and mostly everything priced in those dollars is the most relevant barometer for daily risk management right now – well… now you know.
The US Dollar is up for the 3rd day in a row, and the SP500 is down for the 3rd day in a row. So was that the cycle low for the US Dollar? Is the Buck Bombed Out? That’s one of our 3 Macro Themes here at Research Edge for Q4 of 2009. Currently we are not short the USD. Bottoms are processes, not points.
Currently, the US Dollar is trading up +0.52% to $75.68. Ordinarily, this would be just one more of those opportunities to load the long side of the boat with anything priced in bucks – but swimming along what we call The Shark Line, is far from ordinary.
For those of you who recall our Q2 MEGA Squeeze call for the US stock market, you’ll remember our salty water friend, Squeezy The Shark. He’s making a comeback here today. Matt Hedrick is smiling right now.
If the US Dollar Index is able to hold its gains here and close above it’s immediate term TRADE line, the probability for an immediate term short squeeze in the Bombed Out Buck goes up. That TRADE line is outlined in the chart below at $75.58.
Some people say they don’t care about TRADE lines. I say they should. All TRADEs in my macro model have an opportunity to become TRENDs. The intermediate term TREND line for the USD is now $76.98.
I do not think the bearish TREND in the Burning Buck will be violated to the upside, but I do think that an immediate term TRADE squeeze could test that thesis.
From here, that would put an almost +2% up move for the USD in play. The de-leveraging effect of USD up moves can be as high as 4-5:1, so please manage the risk associated with your long exposure accordingly. I moved to a 67% position in Cash in the Asset Allocation model earlier this week. That’s too high, so I want to be buying things on weakness, but I don’t want to be too early.
If the US Dollar fails to hold today’s strength and rolls over again. Squeezy can go back to sleep.
Keith R. McCullough
Chief Executive Officer
daily macro intelligence
Relied upon by big institutional and individual investors across the world, this granular morning newsletter distills the latest and most vital market developments and insures that you are always in the know.