Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, [ZH: We first noted the shift to a barter economy that is occuring in Greece back in April. But Mike's excellent update below shows that this 'barter' has progressed to a new 'alternative' currency] Really fascinating article about how many cities and communities in Greece have already moved on from the euro to bartering as well as alternative currencies.  The city of Volos, 200 miles north of Athens with a population of 170,000 is highlighted in the article due to the size of its alternative money market centered around a local currency call the Tem.  This sort of behavior will be the wave of the future in all countries, as Central Bank currencies are debased into extinction.  It’s interesting because while I was in Crested Butte over New Year’s I noticed they have a local currency going there called Crested Butte Bucks and I was really surprised to see that you can spend them pretty much anywhere in town.  I also highlighted this trend in my post earlier this year English City of Bristol Launches its Own Local Currency. Now, from the Guardian:

It’s been a busy day at the market in downtown Volos. Angeliki Ioanitou has sold a decent quantity of olive oil and soap, while her friend Maria has done good business with her fresh pies.   But not a single euro has changed hands.   In this bustling port city at the foot of Mount Pelion, in the heart of Greece‘s most fertile plain, locals have come up with a novel way of dealing with austerity – adopting their own alternative currency, known as the Tem.   “Frankly the Tem has been a life-saver,” said Christina Koutsieri, clutching DVDs and a bag of food as she emerged from the marketplace. “In March I had to close the grocery store I had kept going for 27 years because I just couldn’t afford all the new taxes and bills. Everyone I know has lost their jobs. It’s tragic.”   For local officials such as Panos Skotiniotis, the mayor of Volos, the alternative currency has proved to be an excellent way of supplementing the euro. “We are all for supporting alternatives that help alleviate the crisis’s economic and social consequences.”

Full Guardian article here.

So you want a trillion dollar platinum coin? Ok: here are some facts:

• Platinum has traditionally been the most valuable precious metal for one simple reason: it is rare.
• It is so rare, that all the platinum ever mined could fit into a 25 cubic foot box.
• The weight of that box comes out to just over 16 tons: this is how much platinum has been mined since the start of time.
• A coin valued at $1 trillion and made out of platinum would, at today's price of $1557/ounce, weigh in at 642.3 million ounces.
• 642.3 million ounces is also roughly 18 thousand tons, or about 1100 times more than all the platinum mined.

In other words, putting a coin that is worth $1 trillion in perspective to all the platinum ever mined, would look something like this: Now, putting the sheer legal idiocy of the proposal aside, and CNBC's John Carney has written a good article about why it is indeed, legal idiocy, the simple reality is that for this retarded idea to work, there has to be some justifiability, or even remote credibility of the "legal tender" backing the value. Sadly as the chart above shows, there can't possibly be such justifiability. Or can there? Remember, as we said, the chart above is indicative of reality at today's prices. So if the Treasury plans on literally coming up with ridiculous laws, what is there to prevent it from merely coining a one ounce, or half an ounce, or one gram Platinum coin and assigning it the value of $1 trillion. Sure it can. There is a problem with that, however: it is called currency devaluation and is also what FDR did with executive order 6102 when he confiscated America's gold - he basically devalued the US Dollar by well over half overnight (which, for all those curious, is the endgame in the current depression also, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it). In other words, when one strips away with all the rhetoric, all the advocates of this insidiously stupid idea which gets a new life every time there is a debt ceiling crisis, are doing, is arguing for a massive devaluation of the dollar: because for the trillion dollar coin idea to be even remotely plausible, the price of Platinum, and by implication the entire precious metals complex, would have to go up by a factor of some 1,100. It also means the value of the paper US currency would have to go down by 1,100. Which, by the way, is precisely what all those who wish for the Fed to continue funding America's unprecedented spending binge, which can never be satisfied by taxes alone, are hoping for. And of course, they will eventually get it.

We are sad to bring you the tragic news that Tim "TuboTax" Geithner, who has long made clear his plans to leave some time in early 2013, will be out before March, and in fact before the end of January as it turns out. From Bloomberg:

• GEITHNER SAID TO PLAN DEPARTURE BEFORE DEBT CEILING RECKONING

We are also confident readers will somehow be able to overcome the unprecedented sadness at this particular rat's departure from the Titanic, metaphorically speaking of course. And while Timmy's replacement (assuming it is of the Homo Sapiens genus and species) is still unknown, we know what some of the prospects think about serving the public:

American Express Kenneth Chenault had been approached for job, has indicated he isn’t interested   Administration officials had approached American Express Co. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Chenault about joining Obama’s second-term cabinet, possibly as Treasury secretary. Chenault isn’t interested in leaving his private sector job, according to a spokesman.

More from Bloomberg

Overnight, Frank Partnoy and Jesse Eisinger released an epic magnum opus titled "What's Inside America's Banks", in which they use over 9000 words, including spot on references to Wells Fargo, JPM, Andy Haldane, Kevin Warsh, Basel II, Basel III (whose regulatory framework is now 509 pages and includes a ridiculous 78 calculus equations to suggest that banks have to delever by some $3 trillion, which is why it will never pass) to give their answer: "Nobody knows."

Of course, while this yeoman's effort may come as news to a broader cross-section of the population, is it well known by anyone who has even a passing interest in the loan-loss reserve release earnings generating black boxes formerly known as banks (which once upon a time made their money using Net Interest margin, and actually lending out money to make a profit), and now simply known as FDIC insured Bank Holding Company hedge funds. This also happens to be the second sentence in the lead paragraph of the story: "Sophisticated investors describe big banks as “black boxes” that may still be concealing enormous risks—the sort that could again take down the economy." So far so good, and again - not truly news. What however may come as news to none other than the author is that the first sentence of the lead-in: 'Some four years after the 2008 financial crisis, public trust in banks is as low as ever" is, sadly, wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Because as we showed a week ago, the general public's "trust" and faith in banks is not expressed through the stock price of their equities, something which these days is largely determined by the Federal Reserve and the banks themselves, who not only give each other "Conviction Strong Buy" upgrades on a frequent basis but also buy each others' stocks in the biggest circle jerk imaginable, or even through slurred anecdotes at the local pub bashing Ken this and Jamie that. Instead it is expressed by how much trust the general population - the public - has put on deposit, literally, in the form of money, in either checking or, worse, savings (because under ZIRP there is no interest income, and having a savings account merely locks up one's withdrawal options) accounts with various financial institutions, or as The Atlantic calls them black boxes.

The truth is, that as of December 18, there was a record $9.2 trillion in total bank deposits: this is not only the evil 1%-ers money, but money from mom and pops - the public - who have saved cash all their lives, the bulk of it from hard work, and instead of keeping it in cash have decided to hand it over to the banks for "safe keeping." As a reminder, deposits (even savings deposits under ZIRP) are the effectively equivalent of currency in circulation. Or physical money. Money, which in a fractional reserve system is created by the fed and by private commercial banks (sometime it is surprising how much confusion there is about the money creation process: we will address this in a later article) when they create loans.

The problem, as we noted recently is that since the Lehman failure, US commercial banks have not created one incremental dollar in loans, and in fact the total amount of loans outstanding has dipped by some $120 billion in the past 4 years! And yet US bank deposits keep soaring, and as noted above have just crossed $9.2 trillion for the first time ever. Thank you Federal reserve excess reserves and shadow banking system repo (and other) transformations.

In other words, so explicit is the trust in banks and stability of the Fed-backstopped banking system that a whopping $2 trillion in excess deposits over loans have been parked at US banks.

Notably, all of the above ignores the fact that as of January 1, 2013 the FDIC's Transaction Account Guarantee program expired, making millions of depositors effecitvely unsecured creditors in what are the world's most insolvent (and most central bank backstopped) banks. This consolidated unsecured claim according to the WSJ amounts to some $1.5 trillion.

And it gets worse, because one aspect untouched in the Atlantic piece is that it is this excess differential in deposits over loans that allows banks to all be glorified, depositor-insured hedge funds and use the excess delta to gamble with risk free, Treasyrt backed depositor capital (courtesy of the Gramm Leach Bliley act which ended Glass Steagall) in the way that the JPM CIO was nothing but a massive "hedging" hedge fund with $323 billion in AUM.

This is money that the "London Whale" and his team used to distort the fixed income market so much they effectively became the market (as the Atlantic piece touched upon).

One can only wonder what other assets the banks have invested using this excess deposit base, although we are confident that valiant mainstream media effort to truly uncover the depth of the US banking system's manipulation of the US saver will gradually become apparent and known to all. 

It is precisely this "money on the sidelines" that allows the banks to bid up risk assets to such stratospheric levels that the Fed can claim victory, that the financial system can continue the theater that it is capitalized thanks to a substantial equity tranche, and that social orders can be preserved in a society in which the only thing that appears to matter is the closing trade of the Russell 2000.

Yet the paradox deepens when one considers that it is precisely this money being parked with the banks, instead of being demanded for circulating purposes that has so far avoided rampant inflation. Putting the $2 trillion in just excess deposits over loans in perspective (not the entire $9.2 trillion): there is $1.1 trillion of currency in circulation. Should all this money be pulled and enter the broader economy, one can kiss any CPI data massaging goodbye.

Which brings us to the jist of the story: on one hand, the public may be disenchanted with the US banking system, but on the other, the explicit trust has never been greater. And therein lies the rub: should this trust evaporate, and should deposits be pulled for whatever reason, not only will banks be forced to unwind a myriad in risk positions they likely still have on, but the sudden increase of what even the Fed would have to admit is M1 would result in an explosion in the prices of goods and services as suddenly three dollars are chasing what previously there was only one dollar in demand for.

So, yes, the Atlantic wrote a great story on the black box nature of the US bank system, but they missed the true punchline: America's banks and the American public are gripped in the most hated yet symbiotic "love hate" relationship in history. Should the trust truly evaporate, then the banks will have no choice but to pull the proverbial pin and send risk tumbling, and inflation soaring.

Perhaps that is the precise reason why nobody: not bank management teams, not sellside analysts, not regulators, not accountants, certainly not the Fed, not legislators, and last but not least, not the US public, is ready or even cares for a true peek inside the black boxes that make up the US banks?

Pick your poison?

It took the WSJ's Jon Hilsenrath, who one more time is modestly relevant in a world in which QE is implied until infinity or until the Fed loses all control of the money creation process, 12 whopping minutes to release a 589-word article analyzing the FOMC minutes. At least we know one of the people who had the embargoed version hours ago. We are confident he did not leak their content to anyone. Hilsenrath's prepared take: "A new fault line has opened up at the often-divided Federal Reserve: When to halt the bond-buying programs that are adding $85 billion a month of Treasury and mortgage securities to the central bank's assets. Minutes of the Fed's Dec. 11-12 policy meeting showed that officials were divided about when to halt the programs, with a few wanting to continue them until year-end, several others wanting to end the programs well before then and some wanting to halt them right away. While exposing the rift, the minutes left little clear indication which course the central bank would choose. In its official policy statement, it has been saying since September that it would continue the bond-buying programs until the job market substantially improves...  It is a hugely consequential decision for the Fed and likely the next big challenge for Ben Bernanke in what could be his final year at the helm of the central bank, where he has been chairman since 2006." The rest is just as expected and can be read here, all of which is hollow rhetoric to telegraph a "responsible Fed." All we can say is "good luck Fed unwinding this":

In a little under two-and-a-half minutes, CNBC's Rick Santelli surveys the landscape of just what exactly is Quantitative Easing, why more debt does not solve the problem of too much debt, and why these actions (as even Frau Merkel has ascribed concern) are nothing but counterfeiting. He rhetorically questions how the printing of more money is the way to solve our 'problems', adding via Rick Rule, that "there's been no shortage of cash in the system; but one wonders [given] this economy seems based on liquidity, whether building an economy on what is, in fact, counterfeiting is very good for the economy in the long term?"

On the 'new' eve of the Republican Convention, it appears all is not well in the Romney-Ryan ranks. In what is quite a stunning admission, though not entirely surprising given his outspoken desire for a change to the status quo, the NY Times is reporting that Ron Paul does not fully endorse Romney for President. Mr. Paul, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined. "It wouldn't be my speech," Mr. Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president." Whether this is Paul playing an admirable 'long-game' and/or standing by his libertarian roots (or angry at his apparent marginalization) is unclear but one thing is for sure; with the dominance of 'young' voters (seeking 'change'?) behind Ron Paul relative to 'old' voters with Romney, this rebuff will not help in the fight against TOTUS. As BigStory reports, Paul is telling his supporters to stand firm because "we will become the tent eventually!"

There is a glaring divide between the G10 and Emerging Market economies in terms of what monetary easing is priced in - and what is not. Specifically, as Citi notes below, traders 'expect' the US, Europe, and Canada all to be tightening (raising rates) within 18 months, while expectations are for Australia (and the rest of the China-reliant nations across Asia) to see notable easing in that period - and already priced in. Brazil is the standout as far as 'inflation' fighting rate rises just as Eastern Europe is priced for the most 'easing' of rates. It seems clear that not every stimulating headline has the same value with this much EM easing priced in already - and hope priced into DMs.

 

Developed Markets (how many bps are ST rates expected/priced-in to move)

 

Emerging Markets (how many bps are ST rates expected/priced-in to move)

 

 

Source: Citi