Why am I holding Euros???

The most obvious question to oneself these days, especially if one's a fund or an institutional, is Why aren't we bailing out of Europe...If you're the client, the question to your advisor: Why are you holding on to Euros?  The obvious explanation is: cognitive dissonance. The hypothesis was advanced by  psychologist Leon Festinger (1957).It became popular among political pundits and business types quite rapidly when, years later,  Newell and Simon* integrated Festinger's insights into their own hypothesis concerning human problem-solving.

The Newell-Simon model as it is now labelled, named after Allen Newell and Herbert Simon,  describes how human beings make decisions, ie. solve problems. It becomes especially enlightening when it describes how people react during the intellectual logistics of problem-solving: the intelligence phase, design phase and choice phase.

How do investors react to conflicting attitudes: you hold Euros but everyone calls a crash.

Decision-makers, when in doubt,  will "listen" 'more' to information that supports their belief system than to information that disrupts or questions their belief system.  The underlying hypothesis is that the individual seeks to reduce dissonance or accompanying discomfort created by conflicting information that undermines his position. He will settle for 'satisficing' information without claim to making the optimal decision.

But in many cases, he will side with inputs that justify his original position. Of course, the more individuals are rationally bound (you don't have all the info) the more they will attempt to adjust in a timely satisficing way to the facts. If the former, You could be a die-hard and lose your pants and that of your clients, notwithstanding the information;  if the latter, you could be pragmatic, give yourself and others the benefit of the doubt, and bail-out. After all, the well-known economist and investor John Maynard Keynes evoked the perfect reaction to relieve the dissonance: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

So why are some investors still holding on to the Euro securities...for the same reasons that some European leaders keep promoting austerity measures for public policy notwithstanding the adverse results being generated in  Greece, Spain and Italy.

The dissonance:
Firstly, even though things are difficult in Europe, they're difficult all-around the world. Some will argue that they're already overexposed in equities, in BRICs, in US and other sovereign currency-issuer securities, and even gold-it can collapse on a wind-shift....after which deliberation they move on and argue the next....

...Eurozone economies are not in as bad a condition as selected data suggest. It's quite reasonable to experience hiccups during 'policy transitions' after traveling over rocky roads. And Southern European roads are very rocky according to northern Europeans. Things will smooth themselves out over time. The worst case is if Greece defaults. Let it exit. Nudge Greece out gracefully. The Zone is saved.  This is the message that is being conveyed by European leadership as social tensions in certain countries become more forceful. If that doesn't work out as planned....they move on and argue the next....

...Europe is 'too big to fail'. (Remember Lehmann et al). The US and China won't let it happen- this is Europe, not some mismanaged bank. Some refer to this position as highly speculative; other would consider it quite realistic. Either way, their rationalization recalls Lord Byron's popular but mistranslated line found in his Childe Harolde's Pilgrimage :

   When falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall;
   And when Rome falls--the World.'

The Eurozone rendition is "When falls the Euro, Europe shall fall; And when Europe falls---the World."

It would carry more credence if it was the US, however.

Here's my take:  If China's growth is projected downwards, if Germany's order book starts doesn't refill to 2010 levels (I don't think it will refill for a long while) and  growth in the US is revised downwards, then you should have bailed to liquid USD, until the facts change!!! If you didn't, think about it.

*I credit Fictional Reserve Barking, Oct 2, 2011, author (Circuit, ) and reader  (JHCraw) for the reference to Herbert Simon's work.

Mr. Bernanke's Fed. Bravo!!!

The FOMC statement issued Tuesday August 9, 2011 at around 14:15PM was dissented by three committee members. It initially stirred confusion in all markets. Equity markets were taken by surprise as they focused on the bleak economic outlook the Fed suggested.  The Dow was down 200 points, shedding almost 450 points in 30 minutes before recouping after watching the Treasuries' plummets and appreciating the insight that maybe equity yields were favorable investments after all.  At the end of the day, the Dow had rallied back over 600 points. It was a session marked with enormous market volatility. Dow closed the day 430 points higher in the most dramatic session in decades.

The same announcement shook short date (2 years and less) Treasury markets dramatically,  generating yields that camouflage Short date Notes as fed funds- zero coupon- for all intents and purposes, and sent the US dollar into a tailspin against the meek Swiss Franc and roaring Gold,  after market players correctly interpreted that the Fed was capping rates at near-zero for the next 30 months until the end of Mr. Bernanke's term.

Most observers also correctly felt that the Fed intentionally avoided sabotaging already nervous equity markets that were showing promise with substantive earnings and a sufficient capital base. The Fed action was seen as creating favorable portfolio opportunities  for money managers to retain good yielding equity that confirm good earning and dividend profiles. The Fed idea was not to undermine potential economic benefactors and job creators. Quantitative Easing 1 (QE1) and QE2 had already successfully channeled funds through the system and filled corporate treasuries with low cost capital which is supporting the already fragile recovery. 

Others perceived the Fed move as a preparatory scenario for an another QE3-fielding the necessary signals to the market, keeping available liquidity for timely Bond releases.

Notwithstanding the above probable explanations, I think Mr. Bernanke and this Fed were engaged in a more extraordinary exercise and endorsing a more subtle stance that blindsided a myopic market, naturally  focused on its malaise. Mr. Geithner had already voiced his concerns that exogenous factors existed which also influenced US markets. Mr. Geithner minced few words when he warned the markets that European contagion was a real threat to a global recovery,  much greater than the immediate slowdown in the US economy. It was confirmed by all Central Banks that if Italy failed to refinance it might mark the collapse of the eurozone and generate a systemic collapse. The Fed was aware, as was the Treasury, that ECB and the EFSF resources would not suffice to cover the Italian and Spanish risk, if and when (within 2 years) they surfaced. There is only one player in the world that can assume the role of backstop required by the situation: enable the Eurozone to stay afloat in case of overwhelming risk, and  keep Germany, France and Italy from following into political and economic disarray, and from sending the euro through Hades, and many to Dollars and Gold,  SFr and maybe yen-but how much liquidity can they carry. The same can be said of gold: how much demand can it support.  European contagion would also dramatically undercut the engines that drive emerging market momentum which, at present, supports some of the global economic growth. Intrusion of the Fed in the short dates would have unnecessarily squeezed  Italian and Spanish offerings. It may just be that the US has saved the Italian offering.

The Fed's move was larger in scope and more daring in nature than meets the market eye. Perhaps, Frau Merkel can be more accommodating in tone when she reacts to the 'problems' in US markets and the challenges of the US Government.