A Forward Look

[bimetalaupt]

Apr 4, 2014 14:28:35 GMT -5 flow5 said:

The latest release indicates that April 2014 will be a top in the stock market.

Flow5,

Making that the bottom for the Bond market? Time and again, we have rebalanced the Expert 50/50 system in the past when logic thought this was wrong.  Over and over the action was correct!

Let the Bond Bull visit all those cows.

Great Post,

Bruce

[bimetalaupt]

Flow5,

Bond Bull is alive and running wild on $4.0 Trillion S.O.M.A.: Overnight rate 0.08%!

Well I have added to the Cash Reserves early this morning in agreement of your data. Thank-you SIR.

Well, Interest sensitive DUK was up $0.04: to make thing worst. Well: DJUA WAS UP 0.36%. Well: the ten year T-Note interest was down 2.29% to 2.73%. 

Well: I have been thinking again about returning to a BarBell analysis rebalancing algorithm for the Expert system 80/20 synergies.  In theory the 20% is result of puts, shorts and low beta DJUA. 

Thoughts,

BiMetalAuPt    

[flow5]

BI:

I'm now a casual observer, not the vigilant trader I used to be.

April is simply a top in the roc in MVt (hence a top for stocks during the month - already in the first week?). But that is calculated on transaction based accounts 30 days prior. I don't attempt to incorporate any change in Vt. You can be sure that when RRs actually accelerate (not just increase), then so will Vt 2-3 months down the road. We’ve likely reached a plateau that will be marked by choppiness. 

The advantage of knowing the fundamental picture is that you can then apply technical's to trade the turn.

 

[flow5]

If you reduce the remuneration rate, the alternative for CB investments would be to buy short-term securities (those within the short-end segment of the inverted yield curve). If the CBs buy, e.g., gov’ts from the non-bank sector, then the money stock will also expand (not just IBDDs).

The Phillips curve (unemployment/inflation tradeoff), problem would be solved by simply getting the CBs out of the savings business (i.e., drive savings back thru the non-bank lending/investing sector – where savings are put to work and can be matched with real-investments). This would accelerate the transactions velocity of money – Vt.

LSAPs aren’t even necessary. But the Fed, the economy, & debtors would be much better served by a change in SOMA’s asset allocation to overweight with new issues of student debt.

As for targeting the roc in MVt, this is old news too. The lags in monetary flows (our means-of-payment money times its transactions rate-of-turnover), have been mathematical constants for the last 100 years. RRs are based on transaction type accounts 30 days prior:

Parse: first column = 10 mo roc in MVt, second column = 24 mo roc in MVt:

12/1/2013 ,,,,,,, 0.10 ,,,,,,, 0.22
1/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.16 ,,,,,,, 0.34
2/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.13 ,,,,,,, 0.38
3/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,,,, 0.32
4/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.17 ,,,,,,, 0.35 - peaked first week in April
5/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.15 ,,,,,,, 0.39
6/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.13 ,,,,,,, 0.35
7/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,,,, 0.30 - deceleration in inflation
8/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.09 ,,,,,,, 0.26
9/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.09 ,,,,,,, 0.27
10/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.01 ,,,,,,, 0.23 - real shortfall in AD (aggregate monetary purchasing power)
11/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.02 ,,,,,,, 0.22
12/1/2014 ,,,,,,, 0.03 ,,,,,,, 0.16

We’ve already peaked this year. The FRB-NY’s “trading desk” needs to do extra work beginning in July (after inflation begins to slow). Then there is a real potential for a crash in Oct. (the Fed will have to intervene then).

[flow5]

TARGETING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT:

The roc in money flows (MVt), doesn’t go from .14% in July to .01% in Oct without an economic contraction. This is what targeting gDp is all about (preventing a stroke). This is inviolate & sacrosanct.

[flow5]

www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12845.htm

“Over recent decades, however, the relationships between various measures of the money supply and variables such as GDP growth and inflation in the United States have been quite unstable. As a result, the importance of the money supply as a guide for the conduct of monetary policy in the United States has diminished over time”

Actually, there’s been no such degradation. The pundits simply could never accurately define our “means-of-payment” money supply. Money is the measure of liquidity.

In 1931 a commission was established on Member Bank Reserve Requirements. The commission completed their recommendations on Feb. 5, 1938. The study was entitled “Member Bank Reserve Requirements — Analysis of Committee Proposal”

It’s 2nd proposal: “Requirements against debits to deposits”
This research paper was “declassified” on March 23, 1983. By the time this paper was “declassified”, RRs had become a “tax” [sic].

Roc’s in RRs = roc’s in nominal-gDp. But e-mail 11/16/06: “xxxx, this is an interesting idea. Since no one in the Fed tracks reserves…” Senior V.P. Fed’s technical staff.

And the lags for monetary flows (MVt) are not “long & variable”. They have been mathematical constants for 100 years. This is the Gospel. No other metric has a higher R^2.

[flow5]

01/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.16 ,,,,, 0.34
02/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.13 ,,,,, 0.38
03/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,, 0.32
04/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.12 ,,,,, 0.30
05/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.10 ,,,,, 0.34
06/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.09 ,,,,, 0.30
07/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.10 ,,,,, 0.26
08/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.05 ,,,,, 0.21
09/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.05 ,,,,, 0.22
10/1/2014 ,,,,, -0.02 ,,,,, 0.18
11/1/2014 ,,,,, -0.02 ,,,,, 0.17
12/1/2014 ,,,,, -0.01 ,,,,, 0.12

The deceleration in economic activity is intensifying.  This trajectory bias shows a recession beginning in the 4th qtr.  There won't be a recession based on these numbers, but stocks will sell off during July's seasonal inflection point.

[flow5]

The scientific evidence for the last 100 years is irrefutable.  I.e., the trajectory in the rate-of-change (proxy for inflation indices), for MVt (the scientific method), projects a top in the inflation indices in May 2014. The seasonal factor's map (scientific proof), is simply the product of money flows. Money flows (proxy for real-output), peak in July.  

[flow5]

President Wilson signed “The Federal Reserve Act” into law on December 23, 1913. The Act, "Provided for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes".

"It was anticipated that credit extended by the Federal Reserve Banks to commercial banks would rise and fall with seasonal and longer term variations in business activity"

"Seasonality" (principally the holidays), is the result of the FOMC’s seasonal mal-adjustments (& has its roots in the fallacious "Real Bills Doctrine”). The FOMC, through its "open market power", has the capability of either adding or subtracting to the volume of money in circulation. But the non-bank public determines its mix (the volume of currency outstanding vs. its holdings of bank deposits).

This policy is reflected by changes in the Depository Financial Institution’s (DFI), required reserve balances. RRs are based on transaction type accounts 30 days prior. Reserve balances are driven by consumer's & business' payment & settlements (clearing & netting). Thus RRs provide the seasonal map (economic time series’ cyclical trend). 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I agree that there would still be some correlation, however, we also have to keep in mind what has changed since the Federal Reserve act. For instance, until Nixon money supply was also governed by the gold standard. Before Clinton, wizardry wouldn't allow anyone to get a home, and deregulation has also distorted the reserves held by banks.

I think these are the reasons that ND and TX have had better recoveries. The bank of ND has essentially help manage risk over the past decades by having a say in regional reserves. In TX, the regional banks held reserves and are not having to rebuilt a foundation so they can do business.

[flow5]

The Great-Depression is not remotely similar to the Great-Recession. The Fed's technical staff doesn't understand the difference between money & liquid assets. Bankrupt U Bernanke destroyed non-bank lending/investing by inverting the short-end segment of the yield curve with a .25 percent remuneration rate (where short-term wholesale rollover funding prevailed, e.g., repo & commercial paper markets).

"Brad DeLong had correctly noted that the S&L fiasco of the late 1980s involved losses similar to the subprime crisis as a share of GDP". I.e., the wholesale funding market for the non-banks also suffered dis-intermediation in the late 80's, early 90's (where the size of the CB system remains unaffected, but the size of the NBs shrinks). Same situation as occurred during the 1966 S&L credit crunch. The DIDMCA of March 31st 1980 repealed Reg. Q ceilings which created the 1990's S&L crisis (forced the NBs to act like CBs), but there was no corresponding change in the non-bank's asset structures (creating an asset liability maturity mismatch).

The error here is to assume that the non-banks compete with the commercial banks for loan-funds. Not so, money flowing through the NBs never leaves the CB system. And then the CBs pay (interest to saver-holders), for what the banking system already owns (just redistributes).

See:

"Should Commercial Banks Accept Savings Deposits?” by Leland J. Pritchard, Edward E. Edwards, and Lester V. Chandler at the 1961 Conference on Savings and Residential Financing in Chicago, Illinois, and the article by Deane Carson, “Bank Earnings and the Competition for Savings Deposits,” Journal of Political Economy, LVII (December, 1959), 580–88, and “Profit or Loss from Time Deposit Banking” -- Banking & Monetary Studies, Comptroller of the Currency, United States Treasury Department, Irwin, 1963, pp. 369-386.

You should make sure to study Lester V. Chandler's chart depicting bank held savings vs. non-bank held savings as inputs to gDp, as well as the FOMC's response to any change in nominal-gDp (see graph). This is applicable to the FOMC's policy of relying on increasing infusions of Reserve Bank credit to generate the same inflation-adjusted dollar amounts of gross domestic product.

[flow5]

"until Nixon money supply was also governed by the gold standard"

The last legal link to gold (prior to the "gold cover" bill of March 19, 1968), was fictional, the economic tie tenuous, & its protection was a myth. President Roosevelt and Secretary Morgenthau (Treasury) started fixing the dollar price of gold over breakfast coffee and always at a higher price; that is, they were devaluing the dollar by administrative fiat (changed its conversion rate to $35 to buy an ounce of gold instead of $20.67, etc.).

Nixon didn't nix gold's tie to the dollar, the Pentagon did all by itself. The foreign trade deficit & the increase in foreign short-term claims against the U.S. dollar (i.e., gold), were exclusively due to our far flung military commitments (e.g., the Korean War, the Vietnam War, our military bases, etc.).  The private sector ran trade surpluses from 1950 until 1976 (with the exception of one year).  However, overall the U.S. ran trade deficits (because of the Pentagon).  

[flow5]

See that ZeroHedges' seasonality tracks RRs.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-25/sell-may

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Flow, I didn't say that the GD was the same as the GR and that's not what I am getting at, at all.

What I am saying, and you are proving, is that forward GDP can't be gauged using old models. This is why Zero Hedge and others have been way off with their economic predictions. While their is still correlation between money flows and market fluctuations, without a doubt, the fundamentals in the economy have changed.(Socialism is dying) Like you said, the reserve requirements and interest paid on excess reserves have changed the way that money flows in the economy.(GDP)

You can look at the removal of the gold standard however you want, especially if you're going to discount WW1, and the Bretton Woods act after WW2. The fact is that the US was on the gold standard until foreign countries(France) were using it against the US. So while they may have raised the price of Gold to print more, they still had to work within these guidelines. In fact, quite a few economists think that the depression happened because the Federal Reserve was unable to expand the money supply fast enough, thanks to the gold standard.(Like how they stopped the Great Recession from turing into the Great Depression 2.0 by expanding the money supply)

Further, I would say that you have proved my point perfectly as to why TX and ND have had stronger recoveries than the rest of the country. They were shielded from reserve requirements and didn't need to rely on inter bank lending because they have stronger regional banking sectors.(Bank of North Dakota and the Texas Farm Banks) AkA, more money was flowing into the economy(GDP). 

[bimetalaupt]

Flow5,

The point of interest that is looking better from MMXV-Beta is the none M2-M3. With M3 (Y/Y) growth of 7.4% and M2 growth Y/Y of 6.0% (March 2014/March2013) this power house of  longer money from Jumbo CD's we should see more lending for higher value added long term projects.  These investments should propel USA completive edge with improved productivity of these high value added products. 

The oil and gas boom are in part due to the latest world class drilling and Frac equipment.  The USA is the world leader for this development.

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt    

[flow5]

“the depression happened because the Federal Reserve was unable to expand the money supply fast enough, thanks to the gold standard”
-----
Structural changes prevented its expansion prior to 1933. And there was still a lack of creditworthy borrowers. But the Fed’s problem was that there was an insufficient volume of Gov’t debt to “prime the pump”.

“forward GDP can't be gauged using old models”

The gauges have been discontinued (G.6 release).

[flow5]

The expansion coefficient is equal to required reserves (which is the de facto monetary base). RR’s are based on transaction type accounts 30 days prior. RR’s are largely driven by bank payments (commercial bank debits). Hence, transaction accounts divided by RRs = the money multiplier (c. 9%). The non-bank public simply determines the mix of its holdings: currency outside the banks relative to their bank deposits.

See: “ MEMBER BANK RESERVE REQUIREMENTS — ANALYSIS OF COMMITTEE PROPOSAL”
fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/bogsub020538.pdf

See also: bit.ly/yUdRIZ
Quantitative Easing and Money Growth:
Potential for Higher Inflation?
Daniel L. Thornton

Money flows MVt = our means-of-payment money times its transactions rate-of-turnover (money is the measure of liquidity). Given those parameters, an easy money policy is one where the rate-of-change in monetary flows (the 10 month roc in the proxy for real-output), is 2-3 percent greater than the 24 month roc in the proxy for the inflation indices.

Interest rates are determined by the supply and demand for loan-funds (not Keynes’ Liquidity Preference Curve or not the supply and demand for money).

The Fed’s new policy tool – the remuneration rate emasculates the Fed’s “Open Market Power”. Whereas prior to Oct 2008, the CBs would buy, e.g., t-bills (which now yield far less than the IOeR rate), they instead, let their clearing balances earn the remuneration rate on excess reserve balances. Whereas purchases & sales of securities (OMOs), between the CBs & the non-bank public formally created new money & reserves; after the payment of interest on IBDDs, purchases & sales of securities just between the Reserve Bank & the commercial banks now just expand excess reserves.

This old article is a treasure and fully explains the Great-Recession & its failure to rebound as fast as prior recessions:

“Should Commercial Banks Accept Savings Deposits?” by Leland J. Pritchard, Edward E. Edwards, and Lester V. Chandler at the 1961 Conference on Savings and Residential Financing in Chicago, Illinois

[flow5]

Stock prices are preceding as predicted. Look for both seasonal inflection points.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Flow, I understand exactly why this recovery has been slow. A massive debt hangover mixed with a housing bust that surpassed the one during the depression of the 1930's. The debt hangover lead to unworthy borrowers, just like during the 1930's. The difference is that during the Great Recession, the FRB was able to expand the monetary base enough to stop the bleeding.(No gold standard)

From the PDF you posted(pg 3), we can see that because of financial wizardry of the 1990's, individual banks didn't have adequate cash on hand to cover for losses. Which lead to the implementation of stricter rules on individual banks, and again slowed the recovery. AKA, we need to get back to a more solid banking foundation, not just let them cause another boom and bust.

Again, this is why TX and ND have had better recoveries then the rest of the country, stronger regional(individual) banks.

The majority of the recovery that has taken place since the Great Recession has been from private capital. This is why relying on the numbers from the FRB have been off, and why M1/M2 growth alone has been the best leading indicator of economic expansion. While some of the liquidity has been chewed up by reserves, it has also been spent on debt.(Foreclosed properties, MBS on the FRB books, etc). This also is why we are seeing no inflationary pressures, there is just so much debt to soak up. Velocity has been declining since 1999 because of all this debt.

There is lots of money being raised through VC bond sales, company bond sales, and new forms of VC(kickstarter). All private capital going to work into the economy. This is exactly how the USA experienced growth before the creation of the Federal Reserve. Coincidentally, this is exact time period that Bruce and I have been discussion for years now.

As we can clearly see by the increased hiring in April, increased consumer spending in April, increased factory/manufacturing activity in March and April. The ROC(velocity) still has a degree of correlation to the stock market, but it's not a very good gauge on the new, private economy that is emerging.

Once the banks are on a more solid foundation, and credit has been restored, we could very well see a stronger correlation between ROC and economic growth. But since we are years away from this happening(and more than likely a global conflict) I'm going to keep putting stock in the forward looking econ numbers over the velocity that is coming from the banks.

[flow5]

The money multiplier or expansion coefficient (required reserves * .9%) is related to transaction type deposit accounts 30 days prior (our means-of-payment money supply). I.e., today, "bank reserves are largely driven by bank payments (bank debits)". I.e., money is the measure of liquidity (bank debits).

But we already knew this. In 1931 a commission was established on Member Bank Reserve Requirements. The commission completed their recommendations on Feb. 5, 1938. The study was entitled "Member Bank Reserve Requirements -- Analysis of Committee Proposal"

It's 2nd proposal: "Requirements against debits to deposits"

This research paper was "declassified" on March 23, 1983. By the time this paper was "declassified", RRs had become a "tax" [sic].

bit.ly/M0JB7X
-----

First column is the rate-of-change in the proxy for real-output.
Second column is the roc in the proxy for inflation.

1/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.158 ,,,,, 0.344
2/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.126 ,,,,, 0.381
3/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.139 ,,,,, 0.315
4/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.154 ,,,,, 0.333
5/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.134 ,,,,, 0.376
6/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.123 ,,,,, 0.338
7/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.127 ,,,,, 0.290 seasonal inflection point
8/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.082 ,,,,, 0.247
9/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.080 ,,,,, 0.256
10/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.004 ,,,,, 0.216 seasonal inflection point
11/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.009 ,,,,, 0.207
12/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.020 ,,,,, 0.147

"Scientific evidence is evidence (proof), which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method" - Wikipedia

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" - Wikipedia

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses" - Wikipedia

Monetary policy objectives should be formulated in terms of desired rates-of-change (roc's), in monetary flows [ M*Vt ] relative to roc's in real-gDp [ Y ]. Roc's in nominal-gDp [ P*Y ] can serve as a proxy figure for roc's in all transactions [ P*T ]. Roc's in real-gDp have to be used, of course, as a policy standard.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I am well aware of the scientific process, Flow. You should read "Science A Four Thousand Year History". The scientific process is as much application as it is theory. You know, like how at one point the scientific process said the earth was the center of the universe.

I read the report you posted, I referenced it in my last post. That's what I was talking about when I said on page three of the report....

The new private economy..

Re-Made in the U.S.A.

[flow5]

12/1/2013 ,,,,, 0.103 ,,,,, 0.223
01/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.158 ,,,,, 0.344
02/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.126 ,,,,, 0.381
03/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.139 ,,,,, 0.315
04/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.154 ,,,,, 0.333
05/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.134 ,,,,, 0.376 peak in inflation (e.g., gasoline)
06/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.123 ,,,,, 0.338
07/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.127 ,,,,, 0.290
08/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.082 ,,,,, 0.247
09/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.080 ,,,,, 0.256
10/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.004 ,,,,, 0.216
11/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.009 ,,,,, 0.207
12/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.020 ,,,,, 0.147

Inflation has peaked.

The current September to October deceleration in the rate-of-change in

the proxy for real-output (money flows), shows abnormal seasonal deterioration.  

[bimetalaupt]

May 11, 2014 15:08:12 GMT -5 flow5 said:

12/1/2013 ,,,,, 0.103 ,,,,, 0.223
01/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.158 ,,,,, 0.344
02/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.126 ,,,,, 0.381
03/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.139 ,,,,, 0.315
04/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.154 ,,,,, 0.333
05/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.134 ,,,,, 0.376 peak in inflation (e.g., gasoline)
06/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.123 ,,,,, 0.338
07/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.127 ,,,,, 0.290
08/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.082 ,,,,, 0.247
09/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.080 ,,,,, 0.256
10/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.004 ,,,,, 0.216
11/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.009 ,,,,, 0.207
12/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.020 ,,,,, 0.147

Inflation has peaked.

The current September to October deceleration in the rate-of-change in

the proxy for real-output (money flows), shows abnormal seasonal deterioration.  

flow5,
 Your system suggest Oct 2014 to November 2014 as future buying periods of time for the DJIA, RUS2000 and QQQ.  Very interesting as that would agree with MMXV-BETA. Looking like the April call by the Expert 50/50 on bonds was a home run. 

Just a thought,
BiMetalAuPt

[flow5]

The carpenter's rule: measure twice, cut once (i.e., I always double check my work when BI's calculations differ).

Money flows are cumulative figures. Roc’s in short-term money flows are always a mirror image of the seasonal economic inflection pattern (I.e., empirical evidence that roc’s in MVt = roc’s in real-output).

[flow5]

Market is following MVt (dow down 195 right now)

[bimetalaupt]

May 15, 2014 12:43:02 GMT -5 flow5 said:

Market is following MVt (dow down 195 right now)

flow5,

Do not get too excited: DJIA new SD is 19.10%. Make that per MMXV-Beta 2238.22372752892 of risk.
Things could get exciting from now to May N31,2014. We have time to think about some real deals: real soon!  I have cash in reserve for the Sell in May talking heads: let me buy better deals. 

I have been studying the low cost ETF from Chuck:  Schwab US Small-Cap ETF™ (SCHA) as a party to my blue chip growth firms.  But with %K = 49.81 SCHA has a way to drop by May N31,2014 Could get exciting bit "KASH IS KING".  Thank-you SIR:

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt

[flow5]

The latest figures (May 14 release), show that trend of roc’s in MVt have deteriorated. So how does the Fed know how to raise the target for gDp right now? Gross domestic product is published in arrears (then revised twice). The only way to do it is to use money flows (our means-of-payment money times its transactions rate of turnover – using Irving Fisher’s “equation of exchange”). I.e., roc’s in MVt = roc’s in nominal-gDp (where gDp is a proxy for all transactions).

MMXV-Beta may capture Vt earlier than the payment system does (which is primarily driven by bank debits). But it will "revert-to-mean" within 2-3 months.

01/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.16 ,,,,, 0.34
02/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.13 ,,,,, 0.38
03/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,, 0.32
04/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.15 ,,,,, 0.33
05/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.15 ,,,,, 0.39
06/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,, 0.35
07/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.14 ,,,,, 0.30 sell short beginning in July
08/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.09 ,,,,, 0.26
09/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.09 ,,,,, 0.27
10/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.02 ,,,,, 0.23
11/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.02 ,,,,, 0.22
12/1/2014 ,,,,, 0.03 ,,,,, 0.16

[flow5]

Stock screens:

www.aaii.com/stock-screens?a=ssemail

[flow5]

Roc's in MVt = roc's in nominal-gDp (proxy for all transactions in Irving Fisher's "equation of exchange"). I.e., the decline in money flows (real-gDp), during the 1st qtr of 2014 (aka "death march"), exhibits the identical pattern as the decline in money flows (real-gDp), during the 1st qtr of 2011.

[flow5]

There is always the problem of "deferred payments" when using the money metric (or money flows), to match the offsetting sale of goods & services (nominal-gDp).  There is also an problem with measuring the turnover of money due to sudden & disproportionate swings (in both the enlargement or reduction), of the money stock.