Confusion, Uncertainty, and Directionless

The three words in the title sufficiently describe the state of the globes financial markets. Although, directionless might be a little over optimistic given the S&P 500 is down nearly 6 per cent over the last 3 months and the yield on the US 10 year bond has moved from approximately 2.3 per cent to again below 2 per cent for the fifth time this year. The volatility in the markets this week was no doubt prompted by nonfarm payroll numbers out of the US Friday morning. The labour force participation rate is at a low last reached in 1977. And an economy that averaged 260 thousand jobs a month in 2014, a 3-month average from July of this year through September of 167 thousand certainly raises some concerns.

Of course, it relates back to what has the strongest influence on the markets, and that is the zero interest rate policy at the US Fed. Personally, I go back and forth on the debate of whether we overanalyze their policy statements and speeches too intently as it almost seems market participants have lost the ability to think for themselves. As the Fed is data dependent, investors are dependent on the guidance of policy makers. Part of the work of former Chair Ben Bernanke was to increase the transparency of the institution; investors almost have to question whether we demanded too much and bit off more than we could chew, while being inundated with a deluge of information.

The policy setting committee at the US Fed has marginally more certainty than the educated investor whether they’ll raise rates in December of this year, and that is because of the Fed’s data dependency. Moreover, to take the other side of the coin, the availability of Fed officials to deliver speeches and comment on their policy has reinforced the idea of a communications problem from the respective officials. This is especially true as of late when we are potentially on the cusp of a policy shift.

With the September meeting, the Fed cited global concerns impacting their decision to keep interest rates on hold. Following Friday’s jobs report, which is argued by many as the single most important monthly data release for Fed officials, investors have to question whether concerns over the domestic economy are as much an issue as what’s going on outside the US. It does relate back to a question raised when the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan began their monetary stimulus programs as the Fed was withdrawing support, and that is whether the US economy can go at it alone, and be immune to headwinds of global growth.

If anything is evident by the market reaction of the last three months, it’s that monetary policy in the US has failed to suppress financial markets instability. Fed officials have been challenged to lift off zero interest rates, and although in their view economic conditions may not warrant any action just yet, they are unable to put a lid on volatility that has been absent over the last six years.

This is partly due to what is being perceived as an inconsistent message. If the Fed can raise rates by the end of the year, it will be reinforced by a view of sufficient US economic fundamentals. Otherwise, if they don’t, it will question the impact headwinds from a slowing global economy have on the US and North America, which would seem appropriate.

Sitting Tight

It has been 81 months, and counting. The US Federal Reserve has missed another opportunity to raise interest rates. Instead, Janet Yellen and her fellow committee members cited global economic and financial uncertainty, sidelining Fed policy for at least another month. The problem with the Federal Reserve’s decision Thursday, and in turn their decision making process is that it paves way for greater uncertainty. Furthermore, investors are now right to question the outlook for the US economy, the ongoing impact of the slowdown in emerging markets, and what the path forward is for the US Fed as Yellen made clear a rate hike could come as soon as October, or perhaps not until 2016. It will now be difficult for the Fed to avoid something they’ve worked so hard not to do, and that’s not surprise the markets.

Without a doubt it was the recent financial market volatility, which emanated in Chinese stocks but spread all the way to US exchanges that kept the Fed on hold. Very succinctly, the FOMC statement read that they continue “to see the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced but [are] monitoring developments abroad.” What is meant by that statement is that with an employment rate approaching 5 per cent and GDP growth expected between 2.5 and 3 per cent, uncertainty from emerging markets is what has kept them on hold. This in turn revised their outlook lower for interest rates in the US in 2016.

This change from their most recent June meeting was their future forecasts for the federal funds rate and the path of liftoff became a lot more gradual. The projected timeline for higher interest rates will be a lot longer than previously anticipated. This is in part to do with weak domestic inflation, but also allows the Fed breathing room between rate hikes to ensure the economy does not see tightening occur too quickly. As many have cited, recent financial market activity has had a tightening effects on the economy already. Whether it’s higher interest rates, hits to market value of equity portfolios, or the rising dollar depreciating foreign revenues, American’s are being hit with the same deflationary pressures they put on their trading partners when they embarked on quantitative easing. This deflationary dilemma could remain a substantial issue for the Fed as it keeps a lid on US inflation.

Finally, it cannot be forgotten that the idea of a hike in interest rates is based on a strengthening outlook for the economy. September 17 of 2015 was the highly anticipated date for the Fed to raise interest rates because of labour market improvement, a recovering housing market, and a recovering economy. It seems we’ve hit a snag. There is an argument with the US economy at full employment as wage growth in the labour market could jump start inflation. As there is a shortage of workers to hire and productivity increases, firms compete for labour and pay skilled workers more to retain talent. The problem with this theory is the participation rate is at the lowest level since the 1970’s and accounting for underemployment (estimated at approximately 10 million American’s) means the employment rate may be more likely to go sideways than lower. The US labour market still has further to recover.

Whether or not the Federal Reserve was right to not raise interest rates is no longer the issue from Thursday’s policy announcement. The issue is that the Fed, after years of increased transparency and attempting to deliver a clear message to the market, just became a little less transparent. Janet Yellen and her team will be hard pressed to minimize the uncertainty they created from today’s inaction. The reason is not because they didn’t raise interest rates, but when the investors have been led to expect them to raise rates, the question is why not.

Will They or Wont They: A Cloud over the Markets

August was the 80th successive month of the US Federal Reserve standing pat and not adjusting their key policy interest rate known as the federal funds rate. This Wednesday could mark the first rate move since December of 2008. As investors attempt to determine the actions of the US Federal Reserve, this “will they, or wont they” scenario has cast a cloud over the markets for the past few month as the US Fed readies themselves for liftoff. Investors have been essentially at a dead split in terms of their projection for whether the US Fed’s policy setting committee, known as the FOMC, would hike rates; moreover, consensus has now moved to being a little less likely as the market is currently pricing in a 25 per cent probability the Fed hikes this Thursday.

There is a very complex debate taking place for whether the fed should raise interest rates. For starters, the US Federal Reserve has never raised rates in a period when the global economic outlook has such a high level of uncertainty. Even though the argument is more globally based than the Fed’s domestic interests, it still might be the best reason for the Fed remaining on hold.

Harvard Economics Professor and former Director of the National Economic Council to President Obama, Larry Summers is arguably one of the most vocal advocates for why the US Federal Reserve should remain on hold. In a recent blog post he states five reasons for why the Fed should do what is potentially the hardest job for a policy maker, which is nothing. His strongest argument is that hiking rates for sake of doing so and not having a “commitment to a series of hikes is specious.” In his opinion the Fed sits in a role of guiding the more cyclical economic growth trajectory of the United States, versus acting in a reactionary fashion and adjusting rates as they see fit. Summers is also right to point out rate hikes shouldn’t come until there is a commitment of continued hikes.

The takeaway from all of this is really the bind US policy makers, and the global economy finds itself. Just this week Citibank’s Global Chief Economist stated there is a 55 per cent chance the global economy will slip into recession. And although the contraction and time horizon both are forecast to be moderate, it speaks to a level of uncertainty and fragility the financial markets are effectively displaying. At the same time, we have a US economy projected to grow between 2.5 and 3 per cent in 2015 with an employment rate moving near and soon below 5 per cent, which indicates a rate hike from the Fed.

As it is clear Wall Street is no longer predominantly bullish on US stocks, the question is whether the outlook for US growth can look past the uncertainty elsewhere in the world. As notable economists like Larry Summers, and many others have pointed out, a ‘one and done’ is not what the Fed intends to achieve when they raise rates. Should they decide to hike this Wednesday, it would likely imply a level of confidence in the US to navigate the perils of a China and emerging market slow down. From similar logic, if a threat of a global slowdown will substantially affect US growth, the beginning of higher interest rates may be delayed a little longer. Will they or wont they carries deeper implications than the simplicity of “global uncertainty,” and investors have to be cautious to the consequences.

September Arrived Early for the Markets this Year

There is no shortage of stories for what is affecting global financial markets.

On the 10th of August we witnessed the Peoples Bank of China decision to allow the yuan to depreciate for the first time in two decades. Brazil, the “B” in the sensation that was the BRIC economies tabled a budget this week that roiled the real, its currency, and sparked fears among investors that its debt would be relegated to junk status by credit rating agencies. The North American continent sees investors debating what level of immunity our domestic economies have to slowdowns elsewhere in the world, and the US Fed has to determine whether September 17 would be an appropriate day to raise interest rates for the first time since the financial crisis amidst all of the global instability. August was quite the month. It ended earlier this week, but this saga for the markets is only getting started.

As the US dollar continues its bull market, the pressure on emerging market (EM) economies can only continue. China’s story of a depreciating currency should slowly lose interest as in this period of US dollar strength all other major trading partners of the US have seen their currencies tumble. Other explanations of the move by Chinese regulators have been attributed to internationalizing their currency to gain currency reserve status. As the action by the bank of China seemed to shock markets at the time, it fits in a long list of reforms as they look to liberalize their financial markets. Frankly, the bigger concern for those linked to China’s economy is establishing the magnitude of the link between the financial markets and their economy.

China’s equities continue to be the catalyst for North American equity weakness, and the downside volatility we have witnessed with a greater than 10 per cent correction in the S&P 500. The notion that weakness in Chinese equities will continue to cast a cloud over North American stocks seems stretched; moreover, as the exuberant run in China began last October, it didn’t see our markets participate in the same upside. What is likely though is the souring sentiment in emerging markets could continue to elevate risk premiums worldwide, and Canada and the US are not completely immune.

Former PIMCO CEO Mohammed El-Erian makes a very sound argument that because these catalysts are emanating from overseas, and EM policy makers don’t have the same tools or “circuit breakers” that say the Bank of England, Japan, ECB or Fed has, downside volatility could continue for some time. The most recognizable example of what he is referring to is ‘quantitative easing’. What has to be recognized is that countries like Brazil still have a hard price to play for failing to reform and diversify their economy through their commodity boom years. Running an austerity filled budget that still leads to a deficit of 9 per cent of GDP will see a dark recessionary period with huge social costs.

What does this mean for North America? Well, as one economist put it, it risks making the US Fed look like a kid stuck on a diving board who’s too scared to jump. One threat could be runaway inflation for the US if they don’t stay ahead of it. GDP growth in the US this year is nearing 3 per cent. Inflation is approximately half a percent under target, but on an upward trajectory. The jobless rate, although understated from displacement from the Great Recession, is at 5 per cent, which is what the Fed defines as full employment. That warrants a Fed move. If or when the Fed raises interest rates, they will use every voice they have to let investors and market participants know that they remain highly accommodative. Even with a hike in September and the fed funds rate still below 1 per cent, the punch bowl isn’t going from the party just yet.

Downside verse the Upside

It may just be my natural bias, but it seems the “anti-gold bugs” have more animosity and emotion when expressing their views on gold then the gold bugs have in their excitement for the yellow metal. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with being bearish on gold at present time. Especially as the trend following the undeniable strength of the US dollar and chatter of the US Federal Reserve hiking interest rates gives little reason or evidence to go against consensus. But the “anti-gold bugs” are wrong to rejoice or point out the fact that gold has failed to rally when fundamentals should suggest otherwise. That is simply incorrect.

The most common examples or better, what have been misconceptions of the failed rallies in gold in recent weeks are the China stock market turmoil and fears of a Grexit, or Greece exiting the Euro currency. We’ll examine both.

There are still reasons to be worried about the issues in financial markets in China, despite being absent from the headlines this past week. The list of measures that were taken to support their market makes it essentially improbable for them to retreat any further. At one point in recent weeks, half the publicly traded companies on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchange were halted from trading for multiple days. China’s central bank was directly financing a crown corporation to actively buy equities. Shareholders with greater than 5 per cent ownership of any public company are banned from selling for six months. Derivative markets and short selling have been banned. The list goes on. To suggest that financial instability in China generates demand for gold implies liquidity, which is non-existent.

Story number two is Greece. And this is more a story that fits into the greater trend in financial markets, which is the slow decline of the euro. In this kind of economic setting money has been gravitating towards the US dollar. The European Central Bank is extremely active in European debt markets, and has a higher probability of becoming more accommodative than less. The US is getting more and more likely to raise interest rates come September. This world is being weighed on a relative basis and although gold bugs, perhaps to a fault, see too many problems ahead for the US economy, compared to the Eurozone or elsewhere in the world, its clear why capital is headed towards the United States for the time being.

The question then, is where that leaves us with gold. It’s been a while since I’ve pounded the table and made a bullish case for precious metals. This still might not be it. I believe in accumulation and I believe in allocating a small percentage of your portfolio to physical gold as insurance. Especially in a world that is so tied currently to decoupling with the US economy, gold is not only the natural hedge, but the perfect hedge.

The other point to make is how much downside a person can be comfortable with. Investing in physical metal as a hedge against geopolitical uncertainty and US dollar instability is one reason. But if gold has a floor of 950 or 1000 USD per ounce, is it worth risking that capital to be invested if, or when this market turns.

Capital Controls: The Game Changer

Make no mistake; the European Central Bank (ECB) has decisively been the game changer for how events are unfolding in Greece. The decision by the ECB to limit the emergency liquidity assistance provided to Greek financial institutions prompted the bank closures, which if they remain will have devastating and escalating effects on their economy. This is forcing the Greek government to reveal their hand, and their lack of experience in negotiations with the Troika is showing that they are as much concerned with remaining in power as they are with getting a bailout agreement. For a crisis that has been five years in the making, the introduction of capital controls has taken events to the new level.

Since Prime Minister Alex Tsipras blindsided his creditors last Friday in announcing a referendum on the terms of the proposed bailout, he has looked to avoid the vote he called for on multiple occasions. This is because a “yes” vote would ultimately cost him his job. In pre-empting that Greece would miss the 1.55 billion euro repayment to the IMF, the Greek Prime Minister in disregard to 5 months of discussions proposed terms for a brand new two year bail out agreement. This was quickly discarded by EU members.

Following being the first western nation to miss a payment to the IMF in their 70 year history, Tsipras conceded his demands to the creditors with only slight concessions for a discounted Value Added Tax for the Greek islands (a popular tourist destination) and less stringent pension reforms. Again the creditors didn’t blink. And it’s the leadership of Germany’s Angela Merkel, whether too stubborn or not, that has not shifted from the standpoint that they will await the result of the referendum as quite simply, the deadline was missed and the offer is now off the table.

The Greeks have backed themselves into a corner, and the results will range from financial hardship to devastating. Hardship as the result of continued recession in accepting the creditors demands for reforms to stay in the euro, and the potential devastation of a Greek exit, reintroduction of a new currency, and depreciation and rampant inflation. It currently remains unclear whether there is a third option and where a no vote prompts a new round of bargaining, and what will be the result.

By missing a payment to the IMF, they have technically not “defaulted.” Rating agency Standard and Poor’s justified this by saying the IMF is not a private creditor, thus the missed payment was not a credit altering event. Investors took another view, however, as the market for Two Year Greek Bonds over the past week have seen their yields surge to over 37 per cent. This then leading us to where we are today as the European Central Bank as well conceded they are lending money in what has become too risky of a scenario and limiting the liquidity assistance to Greek banks.

Capital Controls are very rarely removed as quickly as they are implemented. Iceland, hit by the financial crisis in 2008 is finally beginning plans to remove the imposed barriers 7 years later. In very simple terms, by imposing these limits to Greek account holders to withdraw only 60 euros a day, and not permitting transfers to financial institutions outside of Greece, it is an admission by policy makers that there is no longer confidence in their financial system.

There are a number of themes to draw on with the crisis in Greece, but the most astonishing is simply that a westernized economy now joins the ranks of Somalia and Zimbabwe in purposely missing a payment to the International Monetary Fund. Not only does this redraw the potential framework for the international lender of last resort should other economies face financial hardship, but demonstrates the course followed by populism and brinkmanship and the resulting fallout from bad to ugly.

Greece and the Fed, what’s new?

Markets don’t seem to be overly obsessed with developments in Greece. I, however, continue to watch with absolute astonishment as the idea of a currency that was established only 23 years ago sees the potential of fracturing so quickly. With 10 days left in the month of June, key deadlines are quickly approaching for whether Greece can finalize a deal with their creditors and secure funding. Ongoing is the threat of the stability of their financial institutions with overnight lending from the ECB routinely being increased to support the outflow of customer deposits. Still this story, which resembles somewhat of a boy who cried wolf scenario, drags on for 5 years now and counting, but finally it could potentially be nearing a new chapter.

There are legitimate concerns for financial and monetary authorities, such as the ECB and the IMF, to question their support for Greece. The continued pressure put on the European Central Bank to provide a lifeline to Greece’s battered banks is an extra stress in an already beleaguered Eurozone. However, as many involved within the debt negotiations have expressed, Greece’s presence in the Eurozone has been a political decision from the beginning, and for that reason whether they remain should be a political decision as well. That being said, finer details of any such agreed upon deal by the Greeks and their creditors must satisfy the conditions set by the economic institutions like the ECB and IMF in order to provide financial support.

At the risk of not oversimplifying the situation, two potential scenarios seem to be floated by the markets. First is the risk of default, which is paired with an exit from the monetary union (or leaving the euro), and the second is that a deal is reached and everything goes back to business as usual. The latter is what’s more likely priced into the markets with near term Greek debt still priced at less than a fifty per cent chance of default. A legitimate fear for the markets, however, is the amateur Greek government, compared to its predecessors, lacks the credibility or follow through that suggests that even though a deal may be forged, a very likely scenario to one we are in now will be revisited upon the next set of deadlines.

The probability of default, however, still seems underpriced. For starters, at no point during negotiations have the Greeks or the creditors showing any leeway to the other party. The creditors want pension reform and for the Greeks that remains their sacred cow. The question becomes whether the stubbornness of the Greeks, or their inability to concede will stall the IMF from offering any concessions whatsoever. The other point that is worth noting though goes back to the money. The country has entered into a damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario. Deposits at Greek banks are estimated to be down by 30 per cent this year as a staggering 3 billion euros has left Greece this week alone. Long-term solvency of the Greek banks becomes yet another uncertainty, particular for the German controlled ECB who are the major source of funding for the banks.

Although the story with Greece will continue to steal headlines for months into the future, these next few weeks could see a further concentrated amount of action and volatility. Greece is and always has been a distraction for the ongoing and real problems elsewhere in Europe, but how events unfold will also set precedent for debt negotiations with nations like Spain, Portugal, and others. One would hope for a deal and for Greece to remain in the Eurozone, as any fracture to the euro currency only increases its overall level of fragility.

A Timely Warning Call

Download PDF

The unorthodox specificity found in the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts for the US economy reintroduces a level of confusion and uncertainty for investors surrounding when the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates. News out of Washington last Thursday threw an absolute curveball at the Fed’s escape plan from zero interest rate policy. As a topic that was previously over-discussed and framed by the financial media, the IMF as the de facto global monetary policy authority has entered the discussion. Previous statements from the US Fed and their Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) ensured for investors that the data dependency of the US Fed would dictate when we would see higher interest rates. The plea from the IMF Thursday could reshape this debate.

Ultimately, the typical investor has to question whether the Fed raising rates in the second half of 2015 or the beginning of 2016 would really make any material difference. And the assumption is a very likely, no. But it is important to discuss the motivation behind the IMF speaking out in this nature and entering an arena they typically stay absent from, which is imposing their view on US monetary policy. Furthermore, what are the risks they are implying, which really centres on the uncertainties in the global economy at present time?

PIMCO founder Bill Gross made the strongest argument for why the IMF made this recommendation to Chair Yellen and the FOMC. Gross suggests that in a post gold standard world where the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, the global economy looks to it for stability. Thus, the IMF makes their case to the US Fed to remember to move slowly because as we see liquidity taken away from the global markets, US policy shocks have far reaching effects as witnessed over the last 8 years.

The problem this creates for the US Federal Reserve is their mandate to the US congress is to make policy decisions based on domestic employment and inflation. Global financial stability, which is arguably in their realm of interest, doesn’t dictate when they should raise rates. And as many economists have argued this week, waiting until 2016 with the jobless rate trending lower and expected to be below 5 per cent, is waiting too long to raise rates. As St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard discussed last week, the Fed will be proactive in raising rates, not reactionary.

One could argue in many instances the Fed’s policy is aligned with the interests of the global economy, but this decoupling notion (of US and global growth) that was introduced in September of last year is once again exhibiting its challenges. If the Fed were to wait, they are giving credence to the IMF’s implied concerns.

It circles back to the earlier question of does it really make a difference when the Fed raises rates? No, not when. It’s clearer, however, a reputable institution doesn’t so much see trouble with when the Fed acts, but the effects of raising rates. It’s a liquidity issue for markets that risk the readjustments, like a 40 basis point swing in US treasuries in a moment’s time which we saw in October, 2014, or the German 10 year bund yield moving from one twentieth of a per cent to eight tenths of a percent in less than week.

The IMF has warned. Now we wait and see.

Atrocious, Anomalous, and So Much More

Download PDF

The best comment between the statuses of either the US or the Canadian economy comes from a Bank of Montreal Economist, Jenifer Lee. In referring to US economic growth in the first quarter she writes “the good news is its history.” The statement is as much applicable to Canada as well, as Stephen Poloz’s crystal ball should receive some credit for its foresight of an “atrocious first quarter” for growth. The US economy for the last 18 months has been the bellwether for global GDP growth, and since the energy sector began to tank in Canada around Q4 2014, The US relation to Canada has become even more important.

The numbers were a struggle as Canadian and US GDP growth in Q1 contracted at 6/10th and 7/10th of a per cent respectively, and although forecasted to be bad, the actual reported GDP arrived well below expectations. For Canada, it was the overbearing 30 per cent decline of the mining, oil and gas sectors. And although this blow comes very much as anticipated, awaiting the revival of the manufacturing sector is something that will not be realized in the short term. For Canadian growth to pick up absent of a revival in the energy sector, the health of the United States economy will ultimately be the be the decider for the overall economic health of this country.

US economic growth arguably sites more reason for caution. The two important factors of port strikes in Los Angeles and cold weather in the east were no doubt factors that weighed heavily on economic activity in January through March. And even though recent indicators have signalled a bit of a tide change for the better, devastating news this week of flood disasters in the US’s fourth largest city, Houston, will surely be yet another curve ball for the economy this year. It repeats the question, and whether it is inspired or not by an over focus from financial media, of when the US Fed will be able to raise interest rates.

Sound analysis on this topic suggests that the Fed raising rates is somewhat of a misnomer. The Fed does not want to jeopardize economic activity because of a restrictive rate environment. Instead a rise in rates will simply be an adjustment to current economic conditions. As good and likely as that sounds though, a very interesting interview from St. Louis Fed President James Bullard this week offered a contrary point of view. An insider to the Federal Open Market Committee, Bullard’s take was that the Fed must remain reactive and very sensitive to adjustments in the economy. According to Bullard, (and I summarize) the beauty of being data dependant is the Fed can literally take in all up to date information and decide on a moment’s notice when to raise rates. There is no telltale sign that says they should do it in June, July, or even September.

And this is where the market forces decide. We have the US dollar resuming yet another bull run. As we close the week, even with oil finishing up nearly 5 per cent, currencies and precious metals sit quietly against a market convinced action from the Federal Reserve is the most important aspect of financial markets entering the summer. This is in tune with a forecast that both the US and for that reason the Canadian economy will pick up too. Entering the summer months, this will advance the talk of a Fed rate hike; and as result, the rest of the dependent globe can follow.

Consensus Delayed, or Broken

Download PDF

Markets have entered a state of flux. Without a doubt, one of the clearest trends in recent times has been the breakdown of the commodities super-cycle and a surging US dollar, a trend that now seems to be reversing. Further, the correlation and patterns witnessed in the markets over the last 9 to 12 months no longer seem to hold. Investors are without a clear safe haven as German Bunds, U.S. Treasuries, and the Dollar remain volatile, and tensions in the Middle East are maintaining a premium in the oil market. More importantly for investors, however, is determining their best guess for what the next action will be from the world’s major central banks, particularly the US Fed.

As legendary investor Stanley Druckenmiller recently remarked, you have to “focus on central banks and focus on the movement of liquidity… most people in the market are looking for earnings and conventional measures. It’s liquidity that moves markets.”

Liquidity seems to be the major factor concerning those invested right now. Large gyrations in bond markets and even precious metals have led to some significant moves over the past week with silver rising 6.25 per cent. But it’s the lack of liquidity that can see a wave of trades adjust prices significantly in a matter of minutes. The trend of a strong Dollar that witnessed steady appreciation with confidence the Fed would be first to tighten policy is currently on hold. And it continues to dissipate with the prospects for the US economy, which is looking questionable in the short term.

The probability of a June interest rate hike by the US Federal Reserve is diminishing with economic indicators that continue to show the US economy is failing to recover from the weak first quarter. The soft GDP indicators reported over the last few weeks and the mediocre payroll numbers reported for April have economists delaying their forecasts for when we finally begin to gain traction. As a result, the steam is coming out of one of the strongest US dollar rallies since the financial crisis, and before that, the tech bubble.

Ultimately, it is the lack of confidence south of the border that is affecting the resumption of the US dollar rally. If the economy, as now anticipated, is to pick up steam in the summer months and payrolls continue to advance with a jobless rate nearing 5 per cent, then talks will resume regarding a likely rate hike from the US Fed and the dollar rally can resume. However, if the US economy continues to exhibit mere mediocrity, uncertainty and directionless volatility seem the likely result. If so, this will be a benefactor for the precious metals, particularly with the lack of other safe haven opportunities.