Regular print: Daron Acemoglu Answers in green: Oswaldo Lairet

Money depends on trust. It is accepted in exchange for goods and services only because people can confidently assume that others will accept it in the future. 
If money depended on trust there would be no need to force it as tender under legal penalties.Trust cannot be imposed, it needs to be earned.

This is as true for the US dollar as it is for gold. 
Not true for the US dollar. On the contrary, since centralizing US dollar issuance in 1913, the FED has endlessly replicated it, at the expense of debasing the population’s purchasing power. Conversely, Gold is irreplicable, as real money should always be.

To argue that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are merely a confidence game – or a speculative bubble, as many economists have emphasized – is to ignore their popularity.
Bitcoin is the only decentralized digital asset there is. What you call “cryptocurrencies” are worthless copycat schemes controlled by human insiders that benefit from manipulating them at will, exactly as has been happening with fiat currencies since 1971.

Trust thus ebbs and flows, making them fragile and volatile, as Bitcoin’s wild gyrations have amply demonstrated.
Judging Bitcoin’s price-discovery based on its fiat currency pricing is just as naive, as judging the pricing of stocks, bonds or real estate based on the artificial valuations derived from forcing hurdle rates to zero. Central bank manipulation of the price of money is behind the apparent pricing stability, you are comparing Bitcoin against.

Moreover, with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that rely on “proof-of-work” mechanisms, transactions must be continuously verified and logged in a decentralized ledger (in this instance based on blockchain). This requires millions of computers to operate continuously to update and verify transactions – work that is incentivized by the opportunity to be rewarded with newly minted Bitcoin.
On the other hand, imposing the US dollar requires the threat of violence, implemented via arming the nation for war and submitting the citizenship by force.

The energy consumed in these “mining” operations now exceeds that of a medium-sized country like Malaysia or Sweden. Bitcoin’s global annual energy consumption is 189 Tera Watt-hours (TWh). That amounts to 0.1% of 160,000 TWh in global annual energy consumption. Incidentally, it is appalling to find that instead of performing comparative research, a trained economist would prefer to idly echo intentionally misleading media narratives.

Now that the world has awoken to the dangers of climate change (and to the paltriness of our response to it so far), this massive waste should make Bitcoin highly unattractive.
What is unattractive is to employ any amount of energy whatsoever, towards issuing replicable and therefore corruptible fiat currencies.

And yet, despite its volatility, fragility, and massive carbon footprint, five factors have conspired to make Bitcoin an attractive proposition to many people: its political narrative; the criminal activities it enables; the seigniorage it distributes; the techno-optimism of the current age; and the desire to get rich quick at a time when few other economic opportunities beckon. Let’s consider each in turn, going in reverse order.
What you are truly describing in this initial paragraph are the attributes of fiat money, not Bitcoin, as proven by the factual data presented below:

We live in an era of dwindling economic prospects. Even workers with a college degree can no longer count on securing a stable job with good and rising pay. When economic opportunities are so scarce, get-rich-quick schemes become especially alluring. Not surprisingly, there is now an entire industry dedicated to telling people that they, too, can strike gold by investing in Bitcoin. Money has been pouring into the cryptocurrency because millions of people in the United States and around the world think they can realize significant returns from it.
Re get-rich-quick schemes, you must be referring to either the stock market or those scheming “cryptocurrencies” you keep mentioning. Conversely, Bitcoin has been trashed, mocked, discredited and dismissed globally since 2013, by the mainstream media, the political class and hordes of economists like yourself. Yet, because self=interested narratives don’t stand a chance against the truth in the long term, none of your duplicitous narratives have been able to kill it. 

The narrative of massive returns for amateur and retail investors from a cryptocurrency is in keeping with our technology-obsessed age. We are constantly being told that technological ingenuity is creating a brighter future. And on the surface, there is no denying that Bitcoin is a marvel of technological innovation. It took genuine creativity and mastery to create such an intricate decentralized system, capable of functioning without any oversight or government enforcement.Seigniorage, or the additional purchasing power conferred (typically to governments) by control of the money supply, is another factor in Bitcoin’s appeal. When the US government puts new currency into circulation, it can use it to purchase services or pay its debt. The prospect of gaining seigniorage is very attractive, and probably helps to explain why there are now more than 1,600 listed cryptocurrencies. In the case of Bitcoin, the absence of a centralized authority means that seigniorage is distributed, thus providing an incentive for mining efforts (which are now being conducted by more than a million people around the world).
Purposely misusing the term Seigniorage in reference to Bitcoin will not confuse knowledgeable readers. Seigniorage is the difference between the face value of money and the cost to produce it. Thus, if paying Bitcoin miners for Bitcoin’s cost of issuance is Seigniorage, then paying gold miners for digging gold would count as Seigniorage in a totally absurd and misleading application of the word.

A dedicated source of demand can help a new currency establish a reliable footing. For cryptocurrencies in general, and for Bitcoin in particular, this anchor is planted firmly in the criminal world. In its early days, demand for Bitcoin was boosted by dark-web sites such as Silk Road, which enabled all sorts of illicit transactions. To this day, criminal activities account for almost half of Bitcoin transactions, by some estimates.
What is criminal is to continue trying to stigmatize Bitcoin in 2021, using the same narrative that has been thoroughly proven false, not only by specialized U.S. government contractors such as Chainalysis, whose latest report confirms 2020 “cryptocurrencies” illicit transactions totaled 0.34%, but also by properly researching why Bitcoin’s pseudonymous addressing can be easily tracked, as both the FBI and the real crooks have known since 2013. On the other hand, nothing can come from fiat currency counterfeiting, but the thick and intricate net of double standards, undeserved power, cronyism, corruption, lies, hidden agendas and criminal behavior that fiat currencies have been unleashing since 1971. As recently proven by The FinCEN Files Investigation, where such as JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon, were confirmed to have moved for18 years, more than $2 trillion in payments they knew were suspicious.

Each of these four factors has boosted Bitcoin artificially. Obviously, our society’s economic ills will not be solved by people making money from Bitcoin. Nor has the prevailing techno-optimist mood been borne out in the real world. And whatever benefits there are from distributing seigniorage via mining, they are more than offset by the massive waste of energy.
Again, instead of blindly following baseless and self-interested mainstream media speculation, notice why the real data linked above, proves both of your assertions wrong, categorically.

That leaves the political argument for Bitcoin. Will it liberate us from undue state power over the economy? Not really.True, the US Federal Reserve sometimes acts in mysterious ways, and the Wall Street bailout during the 2008 financial crisis was rightly seen as an inside job that benefited banks and bankers at the expense of ordinary people. The desire to reduce politicians and policymakers’ excessive power is thus understandable.But Bitcoin is not the answer. It appeals to a puerile libertarian ideology in which a lone genius battles an overweening state to liberate individual excellence. Indeed, the real-world person – or persons – who designed Bitcoin and wrote its inspiring manifesto under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto is even more deserving of the “visionary” label than the fictional John Galt (the hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged). Yet the vision itself is pure fantasy. The risk of Western governments producing runaway inflation or undermining the international monetary system is vanishingly small.The real existential threat today lies in political polarization, the unraveling of democracy, and democratic political systems’ inability to keep economic elites and authoritarian politicians in check. A new currency will not solve these problems. What is needed are measures to ensure that politicians, bureaucrats, and Silicon Valley and Wall Street tycoons act responsibly. This requires democratic participation and active civic engagement. Gimmicks like Bitcoin are a distraction from the real work that must be done.
Everything you are stating and promising in this last paragraph is exactly what self-interested elites have kept offering their subjects for millennia, while harnessing as large a share of everyone’s income and resources as they can, especially, since the dawn of the twentieth century. As Mogg and Davidson’s 1997 The Sovereign Individual asserted, “Persistent make-believe” of the kind that disguised the fall of the Roman Empire [1476] is a typical feature of the decomposition of large political entities and now disguises and masks the collapse of the nation-state.”

Hence, contrary to your unfounded arguments against Bitcoin, the information society launched by the global spread of the microprocessor over the past four decades is about to start using the only digital asset there is to place resources in cyberspace, outside of the reach of its current enslavers. Through Bitcoin, private individuals all over the world, become immune to fiat-currency debasement, the premeditated theft performed by the politico-financial power elites that rob them of their private property.

Much to your chagrin and that of your enablers using rhetorical fallacies, misinformation and the omission of factual data, Bitcoin’s astonishing accomplishments against monetary corruption is destined to stop global power elites from continuing to capture at will, the population’s life-savings and their productivity’s ongoing economic value added.

The final answer then is YES! Bitcoin Fixes This!




“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
John K. Galbraith, 1975 “Money: Whence it came, where it went”


“Capitalism is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.” — Frederick Hayek

Venezuela epitomizes Hayek’s dictum. It enjoyed the world’s fourth highest per-capita income in 1961, when it established the political system that over the six following decades, it tenaciously expanded, until fully abolishing capitalism and destroying its economy. 

Visualizing how the progression from one wealth-extreme to the other happened, entails charting how each of the dominant economic regimes, before and after 1961, impacted Real GDP per capita (dotted line) and oil production (continuous red line), versus Oil price (continuous blue line). Below, a few more pointers:


Blue– Capitalism: GDP and Oil production grow unbounded, despite Oil price

Yellow– Socialism: GDP binds to Oil price and Oil production drops materially

Red– Communism: GDP depends on Oil price and Oil production starts a persistent descent


  1. The coloring of the labels coincides with the periods along the timeline when Venezuela, formally or not, adopted each type of economic policy. Note that GDP & Oil Production outcomes closely follow the rubric above, even for the shortest time period (89- 92).
  2. Though in 1961, Venezuela adopted central planning as the guiding principle of its economy, it continued to enjoy the same degree of economic freedom that allowed foreign concessionaires to invest capital, knowledge and technology in developing oil production to the high reached in 1970, when our new constitution began impacting it.
  3. Though constitutionally allowed since 1961, the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil business was not openly debated in Congress until the late 60s. Yet, by 1970, the certainty that the oil industry would be nationalized had pushed foreign oil companies to stop all new investments in oil exploration and production expansion.
  4. Even as oil production begins dropping sharply in 1970, GDP doesn’t follow until 1977, a year after oil nationalization. What postponed the decline was the sudden and massive inflow of petrodollars, coming from the multiple oil price increases that began in 1973.
  5. Capitalism returns in 1989, and though cut short by a military uprising that forces the president to resign, its economic-liberalization and government decentralization reforms go on to benefit Venezuela for at least a decade. Note also that, as per the rubric, GDP & Oil production begin growing, despite oil prices dropping during most of this period.
  6. Upon the return of Socialism, economic difficulties caused by years of low oil prices and a local banking crisis forced the new president to honor the previous government’s plan to reopen Venezuela’s oil business to foreign oil firms, under the Orinoco Oil Joint Ventures. Once again, Capitalism is what brings oil production back to higher levels.
  7. Communism begins under a democratically elected militaristic regime, that eventually seizes power via undemocratic maneuvers and starts an indiscriminate wave of company expropriations, FX and economy-wide price controls, and many other counterproductive economic policies that over time bankrupted Venezuela’s economy.



Only one year after measuring how much devaluation the Chavista regime had imposed on its citizens since 1999, the aggregate sum of counterfeit money the Venezuelan central bank has issued totals  6.5 million times the amount of Bolivars available in Venezuela, when Chávez came to power in February 1999.

As a benchmark of Venezuela’s purchasing power for many decades, our “4.30” represents an ideal gauge to measure the degree of embezzlement gulped down by the current regime since 1999.

In fact, the monetary dilution of the past 19 years has been so many times greater than “4.30,” we need to use a logarithmic scale to visualize it. Additionally, log scaling allows us to expose the scam, using data directly available on Banco Central de Venezuela’s web page, rather than using conversions that require any explanation.

As the chart confirms, via massively printing Bolivars, the government diluted all of the capital Venezuela had amassed until 1999, plus every resource that entered our economy since then.



Monetary Base

Inorganic Money



Edition (Spanish)


Banco Central de Venezuela

Dólar Today

U.S. Energy Information Administration

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

Servicio Nacional Integrado de Administración Aduanera y Tributaria de Venezuela

Ministerio de Petróleo y Minería de Venezuela



As a benchmark of Venezuela’s purchasing power for many decades, our “4.30” represents an ideal gauge to measure the degree of embezzlement gulped down by the current regime since 1999.

In fact, the monetary dilution of the past 18 years has been so many times greater than “4.30,” we need to use a logarithmic scale to visualize it. Additionally, log scaling allows us to expose the scam, using data directly available on Banco Central de Venezuela’s web page, instead of conversions that would require further explanation.

As the chart confirms, via massively printing Bolivars, the government diluted all capital Venezuela had amassed until 1999, plus every resource that entered our economy since then.



Monetary Base

Inorganic Money

Implemented by Argentina in 91



Edition (Spanish)


Banco Central de Venezuela

Dólar Today

U.S. Energy Information Administration

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

Servicio Nacional Integrado de Administración Aduanera y Tributaria de Venezuela

Ministerio de Petróleo y Minería de Venezuela




Como parámetro del poder adquisitivo que disfrutó Venezuela durante décadas, el “4,30”, representa un indicador ideal para medir el grado de malversación impulsado por el régimen actual desde 1999.

De hecho, la dilución monetaria de los últimos 18 años ha sido tantas veces mayor al “4.30”, que necesitamos usar una escala logarítmica para visualizarla. Además, esa escala nos permite exponer la estafa, utilizando datos directamente disponibles en el sitio web del Banco Central de Venezuela, en lugar de utilizar métodos que requieran más explicaciones.

Como confirma la gráfica, mediante la impresión masiva de bolívares, el gobierno diluyó el patrimonio que Venezuela tenía acumulado hasta 1999, más todos los recursos que ingresaron a nuestra economía desde entonces.



Base Monetaria

Dinero Inorgánico

implementado por Argentina en el 91






Primera edición

Última edición (inglés)


Banco Central de Venezuela

Dólar Today

U.S. Energy Information Administration

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

Servicio Nacional Integrado de Administración Aduanera y Tributaria de Venezuela

Ministerio de Petróleo y Minería de Venezuela



If Predator-Prey Economics formally existed as a field of study, it would address human economic interactions from the perspective of Resource Competition DynamicsPredator-prey dynamics have been used since at least 1967 to model the growth cycle and more recently, Debt vs Capital, its most intuitive use considering that the former must feed on the latter to survive. This application of the model gets even more interesting when the interest from Debt accrues at a greater Internal Rate of Return (IRR) than the income accruing from Capital. In this case, their “predator-prey” dynamics produce an unstable feedback system. This is precisely the outcome that Graph 1 confirms and Hyman Minsky’s 1985 Financial Instability Hypothesis predicted: The leverage to income ratio grows exponentially in a wave of ever-larger amplitude. Yet, in a world run by hard-core Keynesians (not Post-Keynesians!), it’s only fitting that neither the chart displaying all stages of this super-Minsky cycle nor its dire prognosis for the future, shall surface until our generation’s true Minsky Moment arrives.

Minsky understood why this function (an Unstable Feedback Loop) matched exactly with the IRR “coupling” interdependence between the growth of Debt (Predator “size” population) and the growth of Capital (Prey “size” population). And more importantly, why this specific Dynamic System always ends in depression. As you will see from visualizing Ratio-Dependence or “Decoupling” in Predator-Prey Dynamics jargon.


Typically, the Minsky Long Cycle ends with Trade retreating until it reaches global scale, while present-day “Trade War Warriors” such as Trump, Le Pen, Farage and other isolationists  begin winning elections worldwide. Hence why, in my view,  we’ll see the collapse of our current Globalization economic model over 2016 and 2017.

Yet, as per the essay linked above, the crash is bad for the “predator,” but good for “the prey” …Over the long-term.


As the Steel-Dragon flies over its 2009 high, it validates our premise that China’s colossal money printing is what truly underlies the world’s economic “recovery” since 2008. Just as it created $30 trillion of Yuan-denominated debt in 7 years, China may have injected upwards of $2 trillion over the past three months.

Putting these numbers in perspective, explains how Chinese steel makers were able to produce in March (first chart), about 80% of annual US production or nearly ten times more than US steel makers over the same month. Yet, as shown on the second chart, the same money that brought steel production to a global record in March, helped fuel its price to $407/ton at the close today. That’s a 48% increase since December.

Oh well, China continues to upend the laws of Supply and Demand, as it’s been doing since 2008, when it discovered the modern central banker’s alchemy: QE Levity!
Sound familiar?

Steel Production

Steel Price vs Chinese Production



Oswaldo Lairet – Sequoian Financial Group Research

Time-decay makes this post more valuable as is (Spanish), but headings may help you choose what part to translate, if any!


Nos aproximamos al punto en la historia, donde la élite politico-financiera mundial (el 0.1%) pierde su milenaria ventaja informativa…En una sola palabra: “Blockchain,” una base de datos* cuya emisión, verificación y compilación histórica es compartida y actualizada cada cierto tiempo (10 minutos en el caso de Bitcoin) por miles de computadoras conectadas entre sí, vía internet. La automatización del proceso fue creada en 2008 por alias Satoshi Nakamoto (white paper) para crear Bitcoin. Hoy, el potencial de Blockchain para descentralizar el poder se evidencia en aplicaciones como EthereumCryptoNoteBitnation y otras, diseñadas para eliminar alcabalas erigidas por el 0.1% hace milenios. Bitcoin, por ejemplo, comienza a surtir sus primeros efectos “igualadores.

*En la mayoría de los casos, un registro contable de tres entradas.


Desde hace unos 15 días, Ethereum hace afirmaciones de gran transcendencia en su página1. Primero, aun cuando Buterin podría haberlas hecho desde que diseñó el algoritmo hace 5 años, no lo hizo hasta tener todo comprobado. Segundo, para entender el grado de veracidad de sus afirmaciones, el mejor ejemplo lo proveen aquellos Bitcoin Wallets, que ni siquiera sus creadores pueden intervenir. De hecho, si el dueño de una des éstas cuentas, pierde su clave privada (el protocolo PGP requiere una clave pública y otra privada), perderá todo el dinero almacenado allí, tal como sucedería si pierde una cartera con dinero en efectivo.

Los actores financieros buscan la forma de crear sus propios blockchains, pero para ser inmanipulable (censorship resistant2), el registro contable debe compartirse con miles de computadoras (nodos o nódulos) que confirmen cada nueva versión y ninguna red bancaria podría llegar a tener mas de varios cientos. Sin embargo, un registro compartido siempre sería una mejor opción para ellos, que el sistema actual3. Algunos de ellos, parecen haber infiltrado sus programadores en los equipos de blockchain mas avanzados. Otros han creado empresas tipo Coinbase, Coinsetter, Gemini, etc., que no dejan de ser simples intermediarios financieros. Es decir, el dinero que tengas allí, sigue siendo tan susceptible al fraude, intervención, riesgo sistemático, etc. como el que tienes en el banco4.

“Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference. These apps run on a custom built blockchain, an enormously powerful shared global infrastructure that can move value around and represent the ownership of property. This enables developers to create markets, store registries of debts or promises, move funds in accordance with instructions given long in the past (like a will or a futures contract) and many other things that have not been invented yet, all without a middle man or counterparty risk.

2Censorship Resistant: If enough of the validators collude maliciously, they can prevent a particular transaction from being confirmed in the blockchain, leaving it permanently in limbo.

3A mayor cantidad de nodos, menor el poder que cada uno (o de un grupo de ellos), para crear transacciones falsas, modificar la base de datos que comparten o de cualquier manera realizar una infracción al protocolo original que gobierna su base de datos. En una contabilidad de activos, por ejemplo, esto significa que la posibilidad de crear dinero o activos falsos, transferir a terceros o modificar la cantidad total de activos se va reduciendo a cero, a medida que sube el número de nódulos.

4Cuanto menor sea el número de nodos, mayor es el poder que tiene cada uno (o un grupo de ellos) para influir indebidamente en el contenido de la base de datos compartida. En todo caso, cualquier sistema de validación tipo blockchain, le confiere menos poder a los nodos que al titular de una base de datos centralizada tradicional (caso de cualquier banco actual o de los bancos centrales que los regulan).


Pregunta: ¿De dónde sacan los bitcoins…siendo que es una unidad de intercambio finita? Respuesta: El intercambio no es finito: Existen en circulación unos 15.3 millones de bitcoins, pero aun cuando lleguemos al total de 21 millones que permite el algoritmo, el precio y los préstamos denominados en Bitcoin, hacen que su capitalización sea ilimitada (anda por $6.3 billones). Entender este punto se hace mas fácil, comparándolo con el oro: La mayor parte de las reservas ya fueron explotadas, pero eso no limita su capitalización, ni el numero de transacciones que se realicen con él. Posiblemente el infográfico abajo sólo sirva para enredar mas las cosas, pero en mi opinión, el autor hizo un gran esfuerzo para reducir el proceso a sus partes principales.

BTC Diagram

Los principales afectados están preparándose de múltiples formas para proteger sus parcelas de poder. Por ejemplo los bancos,  por sus activos intelectuales y organizacionales pueden entender que si no absorben, manipulan o de alguna forma neutralizan este nuevo tipo de Internet (el verdadero 2.0), pronto terminarán como las tiendas de música, las librerías, las editoriales y muchos otros actores en sectores avasallados por Internet 1.0.

Por otra parte, los burócratas que pueblan las alcabalas territoriales, aun no le tienen suficiente respeto a esta amenaza tecnológica. Tienen tantos milenios usufructuando sus barreras de peaje tradicionales (y las que inventan todos los días), que no se molestan en averiguar si en este caso, pueda ser necesario prepararse.

Con simplemente ilegalizar Bitcoin, creen que resolvieron el problema: El mapa abajo, muestra que hasta ahora los primeros en erigir barreras legales a Bitcoin (amarillo y rojo) son países socialistas, comunistas o de pasado socialista/comunista. Sin embargo, la mejor prueba de lo fútil que es tratar de ponerle el cascabel al gato, cuando no hay gato! es que en China, uno de los mas autocráticos entre este grupo de países, es donde se transa el mayor volumen de Bitcoins en el mundo (abajo).

BTC Legal Map

BTC Volume



If Predator-Prey Economics existed as a field of study, it would address human economic interactions from the perspective of Resource Competition DynamicsPredator-Prey dynamics have been applied since at least 1967 to model the growth cycle and later, Debt vs Capital, its most intuitive use, considering the former feeds on the latter to survive. This use of the model is even more relevant when interest from Debt accrues at a greater Internal Rate of Return (IRR) than recurring income from Capital. In this case, their “predator-prey” dynamics produce an unstable feedback system. This is precisely the outcome that Graph 1 conveys and that Hyman Minsky’s 1985 Financial Instability Hypothesis foresaw: The leverage to income ratio grows exponentially in a wave of ever-larger amplitude. Yet, in a world run by hard-core Keynesians (not Post-Keynesians!), it’s only fitting that neither the chart displaying every stage of our generation’s super-Minsky cycle nor its dire prognosis for the future, shall surface until our true Minsky Moment arrives.

Minsky understood why this function (an Unstable Feedback Loop) matched exactly with the IRR “coupling” interdependence between the growth of Debt (Predator “size” population) and the growth of Capital (Prey “size” population). And more importantly, why this specific Dynamic System always ends in depression. As you will see from visualizing Ratio-Dependenceor “Decoupling” in Predator-Prey Dynamics jargon,


Regardless of experiencing a 25% GDP Decay since 2007 (Table 1, Page 3 &updated graph, above), the USD has appreciated by 15% since 2011 (DTWEXM), as the US decreased its oil imports by 60%.

Recently, the US became once again, the world’s largest oil producer, while oil imports have dropped from a 2006 high of 13.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) to 5.0 mbpd in May (EIA chart). The corresponding reduction in dollar payments to foreign oil producers, created a scarcity effect that eventually, begun revaluing the dollar.

Revaluation dynamics should continue, as US companies/workers refine their unparalleled Shale Oil expertise, to ramp up production. Additionally, to the extent total US oil production surpasses other producers by an even larger margin, conditions become ideal for repealing the country’s 40 year old crude export ban.



Oswaldo Lairet – Sequoian Financial Group Research


Since our start in 2005, we have sought to keep reports entertaining, even while including the charts, links, mathematical proofs or documentation supporting our opinions.

Like our 2006 and 2007 reports, this one is meant to warn you in advance of potential market trouble. This time, however, we set up a hedging structure that may help you protect your current investments from such a possibility. We chose this approach, after confirming that regardless of the detailed strategies and ample lead-times, we provided our readers, before the housing and financial crises, respectively, few were able to book major gains from either crisis. Fewer still, set up legal and operational safeguards, we believe were essential to preserve potential gains, had systemic meltdown ensued. This time, all they need to do is Ask!

In the next three monthly-reports, starting with this one, we expect to explain our reasoning for the coming crisis and with it, the   principles behind our hedging structure. But, as you will confirm, serious issues never prevented us from introducing funny charactersprovocative themes or insane story titles. We’d much rather make you laugh, than take ourselves too seriously!

Foxy Loxy:”How do you know the sky is falling?”

Chicken Little: “Well, if you look at Chart 1, since Dec.11, the total amount in OTC (Over The Counter) Derivatives Notional (Notional), as published by the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) has been hovering near $650 trillion, the level it reached, heading into the Jul.08 market collapse!”.

 Chart 1. (click-to-enlarge)

Foxy Loxy: “Actually, if you had included all contracts in your slightly-outdated chart, the figure would be closer to $700 trillion by Jun.12 and that´s not counting the $300 trillion that were effectively subtracted from pre-2010 aggregates through “Notional Compression” in IRS (Interest Rate Swaps) and CDS (Credit Default Swaps).”

Chicken Little“Are you saying that, in terms of pre-2010 Notional, the Jun.12, BIS aggregate was really One Quadrillion Dollars (one thousand trillion USD)? That would be almost twice the level of Notional at the start of theHousing Credit Crisis ($586 trillion), marked by Dec.07 in Chart 1″

Foxy Loxy
: “Yes, but Notional itself doesn’t represent ON or OFF balance-sheet risk, it´s a nominal value upon which derivative-market participants compute a percentage to settle periodically, among themselves. AND …of course, it´s also “the living proof” for every fantastic legend out there, whether it´s planetary hyperinflation, gold´s inevitable rise to $5,000/oz or the “end of (take your pick) …the US dollar” …all fiat currencies” …the financial system” …modern civilization”, etc. What these sources never mention is that next to Notional, the BIS table shows GMV (Gross Market Value) and quite explicitly, the actual balance-sheet risk: GCE (Gross Credit Exposure). In fact, using the same BIS table you used to draw Chart 1, I drew Chart 2. But, note that from Dec.08 to Jun.12, while Notional hits $6 to $7 hundred trillion in Chart 1, GCE actually drops from $5 to $3.7 trillion.” 

Chart 2. (click-to-enlarge)

Chicken Little: “Funny you´d mention that 25% drop in GCE, having just acknowledged that 30% of Notional magically disappeared from the aggregate after 2010! Also, while referring to the $5 trillion top in GCE, you forgot to mention howthe world´s financial system spiraled “like a headless chicken” into that amount! Oh well, I´ll fill you in: When markets were collapsing in 2008 and net settlement obligations had reached $5 trillion, banking giants had only $3.1 trillion in collateral (at market price) plus $1.2 trillion of net worth (tangible equity as opposed to Tier 1 capital). In case you want to keep as a secret “who put up the missing $700 billion” or want the whole episode to remain unreported, as themedia did “not to scare anyone”; just have one of your high-placed, furry friends reap page 20 from this sobering OECD recount.”

Henny Penny: “Sorry to interrupt Chicky pie! But, you forgot telling Foxy dearest, that Notional Compression is a lovely, but rather sumptuous manner of saying “Netting”, which in our last brush with systemic meltdown, didn’t quite work as advertised by those charming young fellows at “Sacs of Gold”! Had the Fed not intervened to save the bottoms of our beloved “netters“, just the CDS blowup at AIG (American International Group) on its own, would have many of them, furry critters from around the planet, still “netting” in bankruptcy court! Again, my apologies and heartfelt thanks for accommodating my disruption.”

Chicken Little: “Much obliged! Henny Bunch! I am glad; all of us birds are keeping track of Foxy´s unintentional slips of memory! I was about to say that if Notional is irrelevant, then: why did rollovers from Dec.07 to Jul.10 in Fed letter-soup, liquidity-programs credits reached over $16 trillion for the banks listed on page 131 of the GAO Report to Congress? And why then, is Reserve Bank Credit (short-term liquidity assistance) still rising in Chart 3, having already jumped 600% since Aug.08?”


Chart 3. (click-to-enlarge)

Foxy Loxy:”You really are …the ultimate Chicken Little! Why would anyone add up the nominal size of rollovers? Theonly conceivably useful information from that report page is the relative amount of assistance received by each of those banks! Regarding Chart 3´s significance, just answer one question for me: Has any of you birds, experienced anything close to a 600% increase in Real Economy prices since Aug.08? By the same token, take a good look at Chart 4 and note that not even doubling public debt to $16 trillion (in red) since Aug.08, has kept Money Velocity (in green) from falling to a 67-year low! Oh, and BTW, notice how the banks you criticize so much, have actually slashed $3 trillion of their own debt over the same period (in blue).”   

Chart 4. (click-to-enlarge)

Turkey Lurkey: “Foxy dear, you really need to get out of the woods more often! Banks didn’t stop borrowing out of self-restraint! What keeps decimating the aggregate balance of US financial debt is brutal interbank-lending attrition! Remember that following the world´s “Lehman Momentthe TED spread spiked 500% because banks worldwide stopped lending to each other and didn’t budge until central banks intervened? Well, from that point on, interbank lending has continued to implode as much of the maturing bank debt is being repaid by central banks. That´s why Chart 4’s $3 trillion drop in financial debt, coincides with Chart 3’s $3 trillion top in Reserve Bank Credit.”

Foxy Loxy
: “Darling, you obviously skipped the chapter on Fisher´s equations in your Econ.101 elective! But, never mind, just Google up “MV=PQ=GDP” and be sure to check what each letter means! If you still don’t get it, here is what´s really happening: Banks have generally trimmed down on interbank borrowing, not only to diminish their dependence on wholesale funding, but also, because they can’t start lending massively to unqualified borrowers a la “pre-housing crisis” style, while qualified borrowers have been repaying debt and decreasing new borrowings. So, while money turnover (lending) decreases and Monetary Base (M) increases, Money Velocity (V), which is the quotient betweenthe two (turnover as dividend and M as divisor), must drop in value! In effect, what´s behind the drop in interbank lending is a drop in Economic Demand, which in turn, affects Output (Q) and Price (P) and thus, GDP.”

Chicken Little: “Wow Foxy, that´s quackery only Ducky Lucky would understand! That is…until Chart 5 confirms to him, that domestic orders (green) and imports (red) are up 26% and 29%, respectively, over their 2009 lows! So, your argument that “demand contraction” is behind the drop in Money Velocity is probably unfounded! Regarding Fisher´s monetary interpretation of Mill’s equation of exchange, you should know that it’s meaningless in the absence of interbank lending. Again, I’ll fill you in: In the centuries after the arrival of central banking, most observers had posited that fractional banking had a measurable effect on M and therefore on GDP. By the time Fisher formalized that relationship, using Mill´s formula, he realized that although you can control M, through central banking, V needs to be an unbound (independent) variable. That is possible, only if “fractional lenders” (private banks) have “unconstrained” access to funding from other fractional lenders (the interbank market).”

Chart 5. (click-to-enlarge)

Turkey Lurkey: “That might explain why $3 trillion of incremental Fed liquidity plus $8 trillion of incremental public debt have not been enough to outweigh $3 trillion in financial debt reduction. Obviously, public debt has none of the“fractional banking” power of financial debt, but the Fed’s money printing does! If the power of fractional banking is not working for the Fed, could it be, because much of its newly-created liquidity assistance has gone to repay the creditors of undercapitalized banks? If so, then a substantial part of incremental Fed liquidity is not available for bank lending.”

Foxy Loxy: “WHAT? What do you mean?”

Turkey Lurkey: “Well, Foxy, let’s say Bank ABC lost its capital during the credit crisis, as the value of its assets dropped below the sum total of its capital plus liabilities. But, then Lehman happened and regulators decided that, to avoid “financial catastrophe”, banking system losses should go temporarily unrecognized (A la Japan circa 1990). Since ABC’s debt was mostly short-term and from wholesale lenders, it needed to borrow funds quickly against the registered-value of its value-impaired assets. Since only the Fed can create money from thin air, this was the only entity that could lend against ABC’s assets at registered-value. Next, the Fed took ABC’s assets onto its balance sheet and lent itthe funds to repay its creditors in full.”

Ducky Lucky: “It gets even worse Foxy! By lending against the registered value of ABC´s credit portfolio, the Fed not only extinguishes interbank lending (which could still occur at some price below registered value), but eliminates thepossibility of negotiated renewals, which would preserve some of the interbank debt outstanding. Over time, as each new dollar of repayment, unwinds a geometric multiple of credit-dollars created over three decades of unconstrained interbank lending, Money Velocity approaches its historical minimum.”

Foxy Loxy: “So there is no bank hoarding of excess reserves, as much of the 600% increase in short-term liquidity assistance provided by the Fed since 2008, has gone to repay pre-crisis debt on the books of bank-creditors! In theprocess, capital markets have not been allowed to clear prices for pre-crisis financial assets, effectively suspending interbank lending and with it, the astonishing amount of leverage that fractional banking could be providing to theunderlying growth potential of the US economy.”

Chicken Little: “Exactly why THE SKY IS FALLING!”



  • Why central bank “assistance” and not inflationary expectations, is the reason behind the post-2008, price-rise in Currencies, Commodities, Stocks and all other types of “Marginable Securities”. 
  • Why Inflation and Deflation are determined by Demographics, not Central Banks.  
  • How RWA (Risk Weighted Assets) and other Tier 1 Capital allowances are promoting “London Whales”. 
  • The launching date for Systemic Risk Averse Fund of Funds (SRAFOF), developed after years of research on which are the key strategic, operational and legal systemic issues to hedge for.


This month, investors absorbed some important news announcements, among them: the nationalization of the last four oil fields, a 35% drop in Central Bank Reserves, the IMF-withdrawal statement and the threat to nationalize the banking industry. Below we will try to figuratively deconstruct what these messages may mean for all “three” sides of the fence.


Suppose you are subsidizing several economies at once, including yours, but their demands keep increasing every month. Unfortunately, last July your economy’s gross monthly income suddenly stopped growing and has actually been decreasing since then. In effect, you have been running an escalating deficit that only became publicly visible when you had to pull out 35% from savings, even after issuing the largest one-day debt obligation in history. Yet, you tell creditors (especially those holding your currency) you are merely switching pockets and… they believe you. But, there is another problem, in the past few years, although you repurchased every external-debt bond submitting you to SEC surveillance, you still belong to a guild you must regularly open your financial books to. How do you get them out of your hair? Simply drop out. Foreign creditors may be a bit flabbergasted at first, but not to worry, they always come around. Finally, there is the issue of how to prevent local creditors from eventually deciding to cash in their chips and try their luck elsewhere. Easy, tell them that the tellers are just part of the casino and as such they can be nationalized anytime, together with the chips. At least you forewarned them!


All this time, no matter how obvious the direction we are going, there has been little you could do. In fact as time has passed, you have accumulated the largest amount of chips you ever had, because even after it became legal to exchange chips [through negotiable securities]; converting them would cause an accounting loss. By now the size of that potential loss is so huge; it leaves you no choice but to let balances grow and accept the puny interest rates they pay you locally. To top it all, the nationalization threat just complicated things further, because, no matter how big, well-known or international your local chip-holder is, as long as your account with him is under local jurisdiction, it just became an immeasurable risk.


Not everything is bad news though, until recently, no mechanism existed that allowed you to maintain your assets free from the risk of devaluation and/or nationalization, while keeping them in local currency. Last November, our parent company unveiled a Money Market Fund whose shares are local currency denominated, but as shown in the Bloomberg price-history graph below, they track exactly the movements of the parallel rate (shown in the next graph).  This price behavior allows you to hedge against devaluation without converting your chips to foreign currency (to avoid conversion losses). But the best feature of the fund is that it completely shields your assets from intervention: No matter what laws are changed or how many banks get nationalized, they have no jurisdiction over the fund. Additionally, as in any Money Market Fund, shares are 100% redeemable and can be liquidated every Friday in any currency you want.

If you would like to know more about the fund and why the financial service providers behind it are as large and trustworthy as your local provider, just send us a note to corporate@sequoian.com




Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDOs for short can be created from many types of collateral, but the most popular lately are CDOs from MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities). The idea is to create some higher risk assets and some much safer ones, slicing up the MBS into what are called equity, mezzanine and investment-grade bonds. The equity takes the higher risk, and so it earns the higher return if things go well. But if things start to go wrong, the equity is lost first…and then the mezzanine. However, even if there’s quite a high rate of failure in the higher risk end, the investment-grade bonds still get fully paid out. In this way the bankers might, for example, convert a large package of MBS into perhaps 70% investment grade bonds, 15% mezzanine, and 15% equity. It is relatively easy to sell the high-grade investment bonds. Stamped with an investment-grade rating, these bonds are sold off to mostly respectable investment institutions. But the mezzanine, and particularly the equity, are harder to sell. In effect the 30% of the mortgages in the original MBS which were deemed on a statistical basis to be likely to fail, are concentrated into what investment insiders call “Toxic Waste”.  Enter the case of the Bear Stearns hedge funds:

Last week, increasing losses and redemptions induced the lenders of two highly leveraged (at least 10 to 1) hedge funds in “structured” instruments (Toxic Waste) to hit The Street with bid lists of CDO collateral loaded with subprime exposure.  The dearth of buyers willing to pay anything close to their “marked” prices forced the sponsor, Bear Stearns to step up and loan the hedge funds $3.2 billion. However, the specter of downgrades of similar securities and a possible contagion de-leveraging of CDO exposures throughout the market initiated a stock market plunges that is continuing today.

On the other hand, we keep telling you that 10-year US Treasuries is the only investment we believe in, no matter how much of them the Chinese may be selling. Last Friday, for the first time since the 10-year treasury yield started rising from a low of 4.602% on May 11th to a high of 5.316% on June 15th, it rose as equities dropped. This is quite significant in that it confirms a new top from which 10-year treasury yields will probably drop as they have over the past 20 years. You can check this behavior in Chart1 below. Notice that the RSI Readings over 70 (se dotted line) have marked peaks in interest rates and the current reading near 90 hints at either a pause or a pullback in rates.

CHART 1. Source: StockCharts.com

In the meantime, the slowdown in retail sales is quite visible after peaking in early 2006, and has turned south sharply following the bursting of the housing bubble. This trend will likely continue heading if retail sales follow its historical relation to the yield curve as it has in the past, as the yield curve leads the trend in retail sales by roughly two years (advanced in chart 2 below).

CHART 2. Source: Moody’s Economy.comimage002

With such a negative housing backdrop, it’s understandable why retail sales are falling and consumers are putting off their plans to purchase big ticket items. Business equipment industrial production has clearly peaked on a year-over-year (YOY) basis and lags the shape of the yield curve by one year, indicating continued weakness for the rest of 2007.

CHART 3. Source: Moody’s Economy.com

Finally, if you are going to keep some Treasury securities in your portfolio, you can either buy them from us or consider buying them yourself. It is quite easy to buy Treasury securities without a broker. Just go to the Treasury Direct web site (www.treasurydirect.gov) and follow directions. The purchases are paid for by direct debit to your current bank account.


Tuesday, when markets were down huge, Bloomberg Television inquired what we thought of the PDVSA bond plunge of the past few weeks. We pointed out that PDVSA bonds had done nothing but follow the rest of Venezuela’s external debt bonds down in price. If you look at the first graph below, you will notice that since late march, when PDVSA bonds were issued, until yesterday, Global 34´s, for instance, plunged 15% compared to PDVSA 37´s which dropped a bit less. We told Bloomberg TV there were two reasons why PDVSA bonds performed a bit better. First, from issuance these bonds were arbitraged against Global 18s, 27s and 34s on the basis of “better yield, same debtor and similar period”. Secondly, we believe the bonds have performed better because Venezuelan institutions and individuals (who are still a majority of the holders) are historically prone to hold paper losses instead of realizing them. WHAT NEXT ON PDVSA As we mentioned last Thursday, there was a great chance we would see an overall market rebound. However, the fact that your PDVSA bonds were helped by the rally doesn’t mean you are of out the woods, but we expect that good core PPI figures today and possibly good core CPI numbers tomorrow could inject additional energy to the rebound and hopefully get your bonds higher. Just don’t wait too long after that to start exiting your positions. WHAT WITH TREASURIES China may be the reason behind the swoon in Treasuries of the past two weeks. As you can confirm in the chart below, at least $12.5 billion in 10-year Treasury notes were dumped by “Fgn Official & Intl Accts” during the first week of the plunge. I am sure this week an even larger figure will be reported. In our view, these sellers are Chinese because “they have got motive”. Increasing US rates revalue the dollar, devalue the Yuan and keep the Chinese BoP growing, especially now that China’s yuan rose to a record high against the U.S. dollar after U.S. lawmakers brought up pressure on Beijing to adjust its foreign-exchange policy. Our conclusion: let’s keep checking the weekly updates of the second chart below over the next few weeks. In the meantime, we have been buyers of 10-yr Treasuries this week. As you know, we think Fed rates this year are ultimately going down, not up.


Shield Your Investment Risk