Wherefore Art Thou, Marcus Welby?

epsilon-theory-wherefore-art-thou-marcus-welby-october-30-2014-doctor

Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them.
― Immanuel Kant

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
― Joseph Welch, counsel for the US Army, confronting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (1954)

Trust Cramer!
– CNBC ad campaign

epsilon-theory-wherefore-art-thou-marcus-welby-october-30-2014-cramer

We are all wrong so often that it amazes me that we can have any conviction at all over the direction of things to come. But we must.
– Jim Cramer

Pro wrestling is not fake; it’s sports entertainment. We go out there and we perform, and a lot of what we do out there is real, but we’re not going to insult anyone’s intelligence – there is a predetermined winner. It’s just the fans don’t know who it is, and that’s what makes it so intriguing.
― Kurt Angle, professional wrestler

epsilon-theory-wherefore-art-thou-marcus-welby-october-30-2014-bosworth

People never understood that there was a Brian and there was the  Boz.They were two completely different people.  

– Brian Bosworth, flamboyant pro football bust  

Ginny!” said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. “Haven’t I taught you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain?” 

― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998)

Oliver Sacks is both a gifted neurologist and a gifted writer. I want to begin this note with a passage from his book “An Anthropologist on Mars”. It’s a long selection, but worth the effort.

He was, I noted, somewhat weak and spastic in all his limbs, more on the left, and more in the legs. He could not stand alone. His eyes showed complete optic atrophy – it was impossible for him to see anything. But strangely, he did not seem to be aware of being blind and would guess that I was showing him a blue ball, a red pen (when in fact it was a green comb and a fob watch that I showed him). Nor indeed did he seem to “look”; he made no special effort to turn in my direction, and when we were speaking, he often failed to face me, to look at me. When I asked him about seeing, he acknowledged that his eyes weren’t “all that good”, but added that he enjoyed “watching” the TV. Watching TV for him, I observed later, consisted of following with attention the soundtrack of a movie or show and inventing visual scenes to go with it (even though he might not even be looking toward the TV). He seemed to think, indeed, that this was what “seeing” meant, that this was what was meant by “watching TV”, and that this was what all of us did. Perhaps he had lost the very idea of seeing.

I found this aspect of Greg’s blindness, his singular blindness to his blindness, his no longer knowing what “seeing” or “looking” meant, deeply perplexing. It seemed to point to something stranger, and more complex, than a mere “deficit”, to point, rather, to some radical alteration within him in the very structure of knowledge, in consciousness, in identity itself.

       ― Oliver Sacks, “An Anthropologist on Mars” (1995)

And now for an observation and diagnosis of my own.

About 3 years ago I was on a flight, sitting in an aisle seat, and I couldn’t help but notice the young couple having a mild argument one row in front of me, across the aisle to my right. As the woman settled into the middle seat, I saw that she had her husband/boyfriend’s name – Randy – tattooed on the back of her neck, and I saw that Randy had the letters T – R – U – S – T tattooed on the fingers of his left hand. When I saw this, I found myself thinking warm thoughts towards the couple. Clearly these were two people from a very different background than my own, but I appreciated the sacrifice and public display each had made to show a commitment to the relationship, and it reminded me of the (non-tattooed) commitment my wife and I have made to each other. I remember thinking, “you know, I bet these crazy kids are going to make it,” even though the argument never seemed to totally fade during the flight.

The plane landed and we all stood up to disembark, and I remember still smiling to myself as Randy and his wife/girlfriend moved into the aisle, still mildly arguing. And then I saw the letters tattooed on Randy’s right hand.
N – O – O – N – E

And just like that my internal Narrative flipped by 180 degrees. I didn’t know what this guy’s name was, but I was pretty sure it wasn’t Randy. I didn’t know what they were arguing about, but I was pretty sure that this wasn’t a relationship built to last.

I’ve been thinking about that incident a lot recently, not just for what it shows about the malleability of the stories we tell ourselves, but even more so for a really troubling thought: I feel like we all have “TRUST NO ONE” tattooed on us today, and we are poorer investors and allocators, neighbors and citizens as a result. It’s an entirely rational tattoo, the result of years of both abject lies and the far more common (and ultimately far more corrosive) white lies that are at the heart of “communication policy” – the calculated use of public speech for behavioral effect rather than the honest exchange of information.

But it’s not just that we have lost the ability to trust, particularly when it comes to markets and investing. The larger problem is that – like Oliver Sacks’ patient who was blind to his blindness – most of us don’t even recognize that we have lost the ability to trust. Many of us create bizarre simulacra of trust – like the notion that the mass media persona of Jim Cramer is somehow deserving of trust in the same way as a flesh-and-blood financial advisor with a fiduciary responsibility to his clients. Just as Sacks’ patient came to believe that “seeing” meant constructing mental imagery to go along with audio stimuli, and that everyone “saw” this way, so have we come to believe that “trusting” means giving mental allegiance to a disembodied, mediated representation of a human being, and that we all “trust” this way.

I’m making a big deal out of the distinction between a public persona and a real person because it is, in fact, a big deal when it comes to questions of trust. The “Jim Cramer” we see on TV is not Jim Cramer, any more than “Hulk Hogan” is Terry Bollea, any more than “The Boz” is Brian Bosworth, any more than “Marcus Welby” is Robert Young. But while Marcus Welby was an outright fictional character, and he was clearly understood as such when he was called “the most trusted man in America”, all of the other stage names in this list are presented and re-presented as non-fictional characters, as somehow more “real” than Marcus Welby. And in a way they are more real. Certainly the stage persona of “Jim Cramer” draws heavily from the actual experiences and views of Jim Cramer, but I think the right way to think about this is that Jim Cramer writes the dialog for “Jim Cramer” and performs the role of “Jim Cramer” in a highly personal, improvisational way that Robert Young was never allowed with “Marcus Welby”. Jim Cramer performs “Jim Cramer” in the same way that Terry Bollea performs “Hulk Hogan” – as a serious, non-tongue-in-cheek (which separates these guys from how Stephen Colbert performs “Stephen Colbert”), yet highly stylized representation of a financial adviser and a wrestler, respectively. Both Cramer and Bollea are incredibly talented – if you can’t recognize that Cramer has got some serious market chops, the equivalent of Bollea’s crazy musculature, I don’t know what to tell you – but what makes them so successful in their chosen fields is the combination of these talents with outstanding showmanship and a phenomenal ability to project authenticity.

epsilon-theory-wherefore-art-thou-marcus-welby-october-30-2014-hulk-hogan
My point is not that mass-mediated financial advice is kinda like professional wrestling. My point is that mass-mediated financial advice is EXACTLY like professional wrestling. And I know that it must seem like I’m slamming Cramer and CNBC and the rest of the mass media financial guru-sphere by equating their efforts with professional wrestling, but I’m really not. I just want to call things by their proper names. I LOVE professional wrestling. Second only to professional politics, professional wrestling demonstrates Narrative creation and execution at an extremely high level of artistry,with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. And it’s NOT a fake representation of wrestling in the way that an episode of “Marcus Welby, M.D.” is a fake representation of medical practice. Professional wrestling is scripted and choreographed, like a TV medical drama, but there are actual athletic feats executed here. It is “real wrestling” in that sense, where there is no “real medicine” being practiced in the filming of “House”. But no one in his right mind believes that professional wrestling is the same thing as Olympic wrestling or collegiate wrestling. Professional wrestling is its own thing – a marvelous and entertaining thing – and it deserves to be understood in that light.

Well … mass-mediated financial advice is its own thing, too, where Narrative creation and execution is the only thing that matters, and everything you see or read is driven by the economic diktat of driving the Narrative du jour forward. No one in his right mind should believe that mass-mediated financial advice is the same thing as professional, individuated financial advice. And yet here we are, in a world where the notion of trust has become so warped that every day, thousands of investors question the trustworthiness of their flesh-and-blood financial advisors and tens of thousands more act on their own because they trusted a piece of Narrative-driven advice they heard on the TV or read in the newspaper.

Why is it so important to distinguish between real people and mass media representations of people when it comes to matters of trust? Because in the wise words of J.K. Rowling, never trust anything that thinks for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain. I know exactly where an individual human being like Jim Cramer keeps his brain, but I have no idea where the brain of “Jim Cramer” resides. It’s certainly not (only) inside the human Jim Cramer, but also within the contract between Jim Cramer and CNBC, within the various humans who produce and executive produce the various shows on which “Jim Cramer” appears, within the corporate imperatives of Comcast and NBC Universal, and a myriad of other locations. The brain of “Jim Cramer” is a thoroughly distributed and hidden set of preferences, totally unlike the brain of Jim Cramer the person, and as a result it is impervious to the tools and strategies that game theorists use to understand and develop trust. 

Game theory can tell us a lot about the construction and preservation of trust between individual decision makers. I can develop a rational basis for trust with Jim Cramer the person (if I knew him), because I can model the pay-offs associated with cooperation (the foundation of trust) and defection (the destruction of trust) within the parameters of a repeated-play strategic interaction (a game). So if I’m some Comcast exec negotiating a new contract with Jim Cramer the person, or if I were an investor in Jim Cramer the person’s hedge fund back in the day, I could use game theory both to measure how much I should trust the guy and to suggest ways to increase the level of trust between us (I won’t develop that idea in this note, but if you’re interested in the subject you should start with Robert Axelrod’s classic book, “The Evolution of Cooperation”).  On the other hand, it is impossible to develop this notion of interpersonal trust with “Jim Cramer” because “Jim Cramer” is not a person and does not possess a person’s discrete, transitive, and ordered set of preferences … a brain. It’s hard for some people to believe this, I know, because CNBC (smartly) does everything in its power to suggest that everyone watching CNBC has a personal relationship with “Jim Cramer”. Well, you don’t. You can’t. “Jim Cramer” is real in exactly the same way that “Hulk Hogan” is real, and trusting in these mass-mediated representations of actual human beings to be somehow more than what they are makes you a sucker. Maybe you won’t see a “heel turn” out of “Jim Cramer” the way you did out of “Hulk Hogan” (the most thrilling 180-degree turn in a Narrative I have ever witnessed), but at some point you will find yourself on the wrong end of a Narrative shift if you trust and rely on “Jim Cramer” or any other mass media persona for your financial advice. I’m not saying that flesh-and-blood financial advisors are always right in how they think about markets and investing … of course they’re not. But they are worthy of trust, or at least eligible for trust, in a way that mass media personae of pure Narrative can never be.

Here’s the other thing, the darker side of a world where we all bear the “TRUST NO ONE” tattoo … it’s all well and good when mass-mediated representations of financial advice and ersatz authenticity generate characters like “Jim Cramer”, who I believe is relatively harmless in a larger political or social sense. But this is how characters like “Senator Joe McCarthy” are created, too, and they are anything but harmless. The flip side of a world where no one is trusted and nothing is believed is that anyone can be trusted and everything can be believed. I’ve recently experienced this modern-day McCarthyism and fear-mongering first hand. It makes me angry, of course (one day I’ll write an “Angry Ben” note on this topic), but even more than that it makes me sad. I’m sad because I see more and more intelligent, engaged, well-meaning people withdrawing from anything with a public face or function, asking themselves “why would I subject myself to this particular form of social torture”, and ceding the field to the McCarthy’s and their media stooges.

epsilon-theory-wherefore-art-thou-marcus-welby-october-30-2014-hulk-mccarthy

What’s to be done? I really don’t know. McCarthy was undone when an institution of overwhelming authenticity and popular trust – the US Army – challenged him directly and got the newspapers to print the story. I just don’t know if any modern institution, including the Army, still commands that sort of trust, and I’m certain that there’s no modern institution that has the broadly dispersed and widely available reservoir of authenticity necessary to combat the pandemic of mistrust that has swept through modern markets. Everyone’s an expert today, and we think nothing of dismissing the advice we receive from our traditional bastions of professional advice – doctors, lawyers, financial advisors – in favor of our own views, almost always channeled from some charming disembodied voice we hear on TV or read on the Internet. We’re all our own doctor and lawyer and financial advisor today, precisely because we mistrust so thoroughly, and as a result we leave ourselves open to false notions of trust. We need new pockets of authenticity, a disaggregated source of authenticity to combat the disaggregated McCarthyism that is bursting spore-like all across the country. In my more optimistic moments I look at the Internet’s ability to eliminate media intermediaries and gatekeepers, and I think that there must be hope in the vast array of blogs and comment communities and Twitter-verses out there today. But then I actually spend some time in these virtual communities and I start to despair.

I shouldn’t, though … despair, I mean. It’s amazing how messy community building and small-l liberalism can be, and the whole idea here is to let 1,000,000 flowers bloom, no matter how inane or misguided some of those communities may seem to me. Cream rises. Leaders emerge. It won’t be pretty, and it won’t be fast, but it will happen. In the meantime, I’ll continue to try to build my own community around Epsilon Theory. I’ve got a pretty good microphone now, and I won’t deny the emotional gratification of speaking to more and more people. But it’s time to deepen the personal relationships here rather than just broaden the readership, as it’s the strength of individual connections with outstanding people that builds trust and a lasting community. As Kant wrote, “number not voices, but weigh them.” That’s how I’d like people to evaluate me. That’s how I’d like people to evaluate Salient. And it’s how I’m going to evaluate the success of Epsilon Theory.

PDF Download (Paid Membership Required):

http://www.epsilontheory.com/download/16175/

Calvin the Super Genius

epsilon-theory-calvin-the-super-genius-october-14-2014-cartoon

People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don’t realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

― Bill Watterson, “Calvin And Hobbes”

Here is the most fundamental idea behind game theory, the one concept you MUST understand to be an effective game player. Ready?

You are not a super genius, and we are not idiots. The people you are playing with and against are just as smart as you are. Not smarter. But just as smart. If you think that you are seeing more deeply into a repeated-play strategic interaction (a game!) than we are, you are wrong. And ultimately it will cost you dearly. But if there is a mutually acceptable decision point – one that both you and we can agree upon, full in the knowledge that you know that we know that you know what’s going on – that’s an equilibrium. And that’s a decision or outcome or policy that’s built to last.

Fair warning, this is an “Angry Ben” email, brought on by the US government’s “communication policy” on Ebola, which is a mirror image of the US government’s “communication policy” on markets and monetary policy, which is a mirror image of the US government’s “communication policy” on ISIS and foreign policy. We are being told what to think about Ebola and QE and ISIS. Not by some heavy-handed pronouncement as you might find in North Korea or some Soviet-era Ministry, but in the kinder gentler modern way, by a Wise Man or Woman of Science who delivers words carefully chosen for their effect in constructing social expectations and behaviors.

The words are not lies. But they’re only not-lies because if they were found to be lies that would be counterproductive to the social policy goals, not because there’s any fundamental objection to lying. The words are chosen for their truthiness, to use Stephen Colbert’s wonderful term, not their truthfulness. The words are chosen in order to influence us as manipulable objects, not to inform us as autonomous subjects.

It’s always for the best of intentions. It’s always to prevent a panic or to maintain confidence or to maintain social stability. All good and noble ends. But it’s never a stable equilibrium. It’s never a lasting legislative or regulatory peace. The policy always crumbles in Emperor’s New Clothes fashion because we-the-people or we-the-market have not been brought along to make a self-interested, committed decision. Instead the Powers That Be – whether that’s the Fed or the CDC or the White House – take the quick and easy path of selling us a strategy as if they were selling us a bar of soap.

This is what very smart people do when they are, as the Brits would say, too clever by half. This is why very smart people are, as often as not, poor game players. It’s why there aren’t many academics on the pro poker tour. It’s why there haven’t been many law professors in the Oval Office. This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing. This isn’t a US vs. Europe thing. It’s a mass society + technology thing. It’s a class thing. And it’s very much the defining characteristic of the Golden Age of the Central Banker.

Am I personally worried about an Ebola outbreak in the US? On balance … no, not at all. But don’t tell me that I’m an idiot if I have questions about the sufficiency of the social policies being implemented to prevent that outbreak. And make no mistake, that’s EXACTLY what I have been told by CDC Directors and Dr. Gupta and the White House and all the rest of the super genius, supercilious, remain-calm crew.

I am calm. I understand that a victim must be symptomatic to be contagious. But I also understand that one man’s symptomatic is another man’s “I’m fine”, and questioning a self-reporting immigration and quarantine regime does not make me a know-nothing isolationist.

I am calm. I understand that the virus is not airborne but is transmitted by “bodily fluids”. But I also understand why Rule #1 for journalists in West Africa is pretty simple: Touch No One, and questioning the wisdom of sitting next to a sick stranger on a flight originating from, say, Brussels does not make me a Howard Hughes-esque nutjob.

I am calm. I understand that the US public health and acute care infrastructure is light years ahead of what’s available in Liberia or Nigeria. I understand that Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas is not just one of the best health care facilities in Texas, but one of the best hospitals in the world. But I also understand that we are all creatures of our standard operating procedures, and what’s second nature in a hot zone will be slow to catch on in the Birmingham, Alabama ER where my father worked for 30 years.

The mistake made by our modern leaders – in every public sphere! – is to believe that they are operating on a deeper, smarter, more far-seeing level of game-playing than we are. I’ve got a long example of the levels of decision-making in the Epsilon Theory note “A Game of Sentiment”, so I won’t repeat all that here. The basic idea, though, is that by announcing a consensus based on the Narrative authority of Science our leaders believe they are stacking the deck for each of us to buy into that consensus as our individual first-level decision. This can be quite effective when you’re promoting a brand of toothpaste, where it is impossible to be proven wrong in your consensus claims, much less so when you’re promoting a social policy, where all it takes is one sick nurse to make the entire linguistic effort seem staged and for effect … which of course it was. The fact that we go along with a game – that we act AS IF we believe in the Common Knowledge of an announced consensus – does NOT mean that we have accepted the party line in our heart of hearts. It does NOT mean that we are myopic game-players, unerringly led this way or that by the oh-so-clever words of the Missionaries. But that’s how it’s been taken, to terrible effect.

I am calm. But I am angry, too. It doesn’t have to be this way … this consensus-by-fiat style of policy leadership where we are always only one counter-factual reveal – the sick nurse or the sick economy – away from a breakdown in market or governmental confidence. I am angry that we have been consistently misjudged and underestimated, treated as children to be “educated” rather than as citizens to be trusted. I am angry that our most important political institutions have sacrificed their most important asset – not their credibility, but their authenticity – on the altar of political expediency, all in a misconceived notion of what it means to lead.

And yet here we are. On the precipice of that breakdown in confidence. A cold wind of change is starting to blow. Can you feel it?

PDF Download (Paid Membership Required):

http://www.epsilontheory.com/download/16168/

Hey Spike

epsilon-theory-hey-spike-october-9-2014-dogs

The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must.

— Thucydides, “The History of the Peloponnesian War” (395 BC)

Global growth is really bad! Hooray!

That was the verdict of US markets yesterday, as the Fed minutes “revealed” (to use the breathless phrasing of mainstream financial media) a “growing concern” with the damaging impact of European torpor and a stronger dollar on US growth, and it’s a perfect example of why I’ve called a top in the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence. Not a top in market price levels (although I’m increasingly thinking that, too), but a top in market faith that price levels are completely determined by central bank policy. This is an observation that I’ve discussed at length (and perhaps ad nauseam) in recent Epsilon Theory notes like “The Ministry of Markets” and “Fear and Loathing on the Marketing Trail”, so I won’t belabor that again here.

What’s interesting to me is not this latest success of the Narrative of Fed Omnipotence. No, what’s interesting to me is this week’s failure of the Narrative of ECB Omnipotence. The Fed minutes totally bailed the market out today and (truly) revealed the Fed as the only central bank with the Common Knowledge firepower to withstand a serious growth scare. The ECB, on the other hand, has lost an enormous amount of Narrative mojo over the past week. The perception of Mario Draghi has clearly shifted from Super-Mario, willing and able to do “whatever it takes”, to what we would call in Texas “all hat and no cattle”.

Is this fair? Is this reflective of fundamental reality? No, of course not, but since when did that matter? Draghi didn’t change. Germany’s position didn’t change. Miserable European growth rates didn’t change. What changed is the direction of US monetary policy. Draghi’s beautiful words work wonders when he’s standing behind the 600-lb gorilla of the US Fed. But when that gorilla begins to stumble off along a different jungle path, as we’ve seen over the past few months … well, that’s an enormous challenge even for as skilled a Missionary as Mario Draghi. Toss in a few well-timed slashes from a master bureaucratic knife-fighter like Jens Weidmann, some disappointing macroeconomic news, and all of a sudden you’ve got a crisis in confidence with European markets.

I’m reminded of the distinction in political regime theory between “sensitivity” and “vulnerability”. Sensitivity reflects the forcefulness with which external events impact a country or institution within a given regime. Vulnerability reflects the cost of changing that regime. So, for example, while both the US and Japan would be quite sensitive to a supply shock in the price of oil from a Middle Eastern blow-up, Japan would be far more vulnerable than the US if that temporary shock became a permanent change in the oil supply picture. Because the US has more domestic energy alternatives, the long-term cost of adapting to a new and different energy world would be much greater for Japan than the US. Similarly, while both the Fed and the ECB are sensitive to growth shocks, the ECB is far more vulnerableto a world of secular growth stagnation. And the market smells that vulnerability like stink on a wet dog.

I’ll have more to say about sensitivity and vulnerability in future notes, because I think it’s a valuable concept for asset allocation and risk management. Beta and volatility are measures of sensitivity, not vulnerability, but they dominate our econometric risk measurement techniques. We need a measure of portfolio vulnerability (and this is not at all the same thing as tail risk), and I think it lives in the epsilonterm.

Today, though, the Epsilon Theory point is that we’re seeing the first unexpected ramification of a divergence in global monetary policy – the ECB is revealed as the yappy little Chester to the Fed’s bulldog Spike. Now in the cartoons there’s always a large enough scare to turn big bad Spike into a quivering mess, and that may well turn out to be the case as the global growth boogieman continues to grow in scale and scope, particularly if it spreads into the political sphere. But for now markets are still fervent believers in Fed Omnipotence, even as faith in the ECB is starting to crumble. I’m a seller of both Narratives.

PDF Download (Paid Membership Required):

http://www.epsilontheory.com/download/16160/

Going Gray

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-chinese-officials

Everything under the sun is in chaos. The situation is excellent.

– Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976)

Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

– Chinatown (1974)

Language is conceived in sin and science is its redemption.

– W.V.O. Quine (1908 – 2000)

I am, as I am; whether hideous, or handsome, depends upon who is made judge.

– Herman Melville (1819 – 1891)

All -ism’s end up in schisms.

– Huston Smith (b. 1919)

What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.

– Lee Kuan Yew (b. 1923)

Two years ago, the new seven-member Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo – the most powerful political entity in the country – was introduced to great fanfare. All seven men walked on stage wearing a dark suit and a red tie, but to me the most striking aspect of their appearance was their hair. Yes, their hair. Their dark, immaculately coifed, powerful hair. Despite an average age of 65, not one of these men has EVER been seen in public without sporting a mane that would make their grandsons proud.

On the other hand, consider this handsome man, Bo Xilai. Once the princeling of princelings, the son of a Long March vet, Bo was enormously popular for his Redder-than-Thou politics and enormously rich from his mayoral “crackdown” on organized crime in Chongqing, a municipality with about the same urban population as New York City. To put Bo Xilai in a US context, he was richer than Michael Bloomberg and more politically ambitious than Rudy Giuliani, if either of those two qualities can be imagined. And of course, this 65 year old politician had the luxurious jet-black hair as befits a man of his position.

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-xilai

But alas, Bo’s political reach exceeded his political grasp. Undone publicly for abuse of office and a murder conspiracy, privately for his creation of a top-notch intelligence operation that spied on his fellow Politburo princelings (again to put in a US context, imagine if a mega-billionaire mayor of New York City created his own electronic FBI that could monitor everyone’s market activities … crazy, right?), Bo found himself on the wrong end of a show trial and is currently living out the rest of his days in a Madoff-style cell. How do we know that Bo is gone for good, that he has lost whatever political support he formerly commanded? Because they took away his hair dye. He’s “gone gray”, as they say in the Chinese political lingo, portrayed to the world as a frail old man who not only lost his freedom but much more importantly lost his mojo.

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-xilai-gray

Patrick Henry famously said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”, a sentiment that makes sense in Western political culture but is met with puzzled looks in the East. Personal liberty is, in an important sense, everything in Western political culture. In Chinese political culture … not so much.  On the other hand, signifiers of personal potency – like maintaining dark hair – have enormous meaning in China and, at times, a diametrically opposed meaning in the West.

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-obama epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-clinton

Okay, Ben, kinda interesting in a cultural anthropology sort of way, but what in the world does this have to do with investing? Simply this, and it’s a core Epsilon Theory tenetthe meaning of events and market signals differ hugely from country to country, tribe to tribe, generation to generation. Ferguson does not mean the same thing as Hong Kong. Hong Kong does not mean the same thing as Tahrir Square or even Tiananmen Square. Monetary policy does not mean the same thing in Beijing as monetary policy means in Washington, which in turn does not mean the same thing as monetary policy in Paris or Rome. But we have an innate tendency to act as if these signals DO mean the same thing, and we can totally wrong-foot our investments as a result.

The biggest thing happening in the world today is the growing divergence between US monetary policy and everyone else’s monetary policy. There is a schism in the High Church of Bernanke, with His US acolytes ending the QE experiment in no uncertain terms, and His European and Japanese prelates looking to keep the faith by continued balance sheet expansion. That divergence plays out mostly in exchange rates, and it has three HUGE implications, one for investment strategy selection, one for global growth, and one for … (gulp!) gold.

First, this is great news for global macro strategies and their low-cost, populist cousins, so-called “alternative beta” strategies. Global macro performance has been absolutely atrocious over the past five years, driven primarily by a coordinated global monetary policy regime that squeezed out the historical patterns of difference between geographies and asset classes. Now that monetary policy is uncoordinated, with every major economic region essentially fending for itself, global macro and alternative beta strategies have “room” to work. To be sure, some of these strategies will still be confounded by an investment regime where monetary policy trumps economic fundamentals at every turn, but the sine qua non for ANY active investment strategy is distinction and dispersion. For the first time in more than five years, we can see this sort of distinction and dispersion in regional macroeconomic policies, giving traditional global macro strategies at least a chance of success. Vive la difference!

Second, this divergence in regional monetary policy creates enormous strains on the tectonic plates of modern international trade – currency exchange rates. In the absence of a re-convergence of monetary policy I don’t see any compelling reason why recent dollar appreciation should slow down, much less reverse itself, with the obvious consequences for US S&P 500 earnings (negative), commodity prices and commodity-related securities (negative), most EM markets (negative), and European and Japanese earnings (positive). But the greatest risk for global economic stability from a dollar on steroids is, for my money, China. Why? Because as I’ve tried to point out in prior Epsilon Theory notes (herehere, and here), China’s political stability depends on economic growth – it’s the mojo of the Party just as surely as jet-black hair is the mojo of Party leaders – and Chinese growth depends on exports.So long as the yuan is effectively tethered to the dollar, a stronger dollar means a stronger yuan, which means weaker exports to Europe, Japan, and EM’s. Sure, it’s cheaper now to buy more iron ore and copper, so I suppose you could build another ghost city or two to keep the growth train on track, but the Politburo’s only serious answer to the politically existential question of growth is to sell more advanced products to more people, most of whom don’t live in China. That means selling medical devices to Japan and telecom equipment to Germany, tasks made much more difficult by a stronger dollar/yuan. To be clear, I do NOT see some imminent economic collapse in China. But growth is much less certainin China today, and that’s a political problem that the Politburo will stop at nothing to fix. I expect the 180-degree shift in Chinese monetary policy that began this January and paused this summer to accelerate again, which in turn will accelerate political tensions abroad with the US and Japan, as well as political tensions domestically with the mega-rich princeling families. And speaking of domestic political tensions …

Look, I don’t think the meaning of Hong Kong – even to the participants – is some pro-democracy uprising a la the Arab Spring or any of the “color revolutions” our media is so quick to christen. Maybe if we start to see fewer English-language signs and fewer teenagers lifting their smartphone “candles” I’ll change my mind, but right now it seems a lot more like a tepid expression of political identity than a determined effort by determined citizens to change the political system at a fundamental level. This isn’t a release-the-hounds moment like Deng believed Tiananmen Square to be, and it looks like the Gang of Seven in Beijing have decided as much with new orders to pull the police back and let the protesters block traffic and annoy everyone in the city who just wants to get back to business.

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-protest

epsilon-theory-going-gray-october-1-2014-protest-2

But I do think there’s a deeper implication of the Hong Kong protests, one likely to be missed by Western investors who want to project a Western meaning on the events taking place. I think the most important lesson that mainland leaders in the CCP and PLA will take away from the Hong Kong protests is not that the population must be brought to heel, but that they can’t be trusted, that they’re not really one of us. And that’s okay to a certain degree … the potential of “contagion” from Hong Kong to, say, Chongqing seems really remote given the State’s control over media and information flow … but it’s not okay if the “transmission wires” of Hong Kong’s financial system can’t be trusted. Hong Kong is an indispensable financial intermediary for the Chinese State, and I have zero doubt that Beijing will move to cement their control over the sinews of real power here, by any means necessary. One of those sinews of real power is the Hong Kong dollar, which means that Hong Kong monetary policy and the Hong Kong Currency Board – already reduced to a semi-independent satrap – is about to make the transition to full-fledged puppet. This lesson won’t be lost on the mega-rich Chinese princelings, either. The days of parking your mainland wealth in Hong Kong are now over, as it’s no longer a safe haven from the long arm of the CCP. Let the capital flight begin, and watch out below for the Hong Kong dollar.

As for my third point – the implications of monetary policy divergence on gold – I’m always reticent to write about gold because it incites such passion (and I don’t just mean the gold bug camp … poke pretty much any academically-trained economist and you will unleash a furious anti-gold tirade). To be clear, I believe that the meaning of gold today is NOT as a store of value but as an insurance policy against central banks losing control. With market faith in the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence at an asymptotic top, the price of that insurance policy – call it $1,200/oz – is as low as it’s going to go. And now with a schism in the High Church of Bernanke, monetary policy divergence, and growing pressures on the tectonic plates of exchange rates we have catalysts for both a generic and geographically specific central bank loss of control. Now I understand that gold means different things to different people, and to the degree that gold trades as a commodity or a dollar-denominated store of value it can trade cheaper as the dollar advances. I get that. But I don’t think that’s been the principal meaning of gold for the past 5+ years, and if you think as I do that this is the beginning of the end for the Golden Age of the Central Banker (or at least the end of the beginning), gold is pretty interesting here.

PDF Download (Paid Membership Required):

http://www.epsilontheory.com/download/16151/