Trump’s Last Stand

By: Peter Schiff


General George Custer met his doom charging into a battle he thought he could win, against an opponent he did not understand. Based on his views about the fast-emerging trade war with China, it looks to me that Donald Trump, another blonde with a very high opinion of himself, is charging into an economic version of the Little Bighorn. By mistaking the real nature of international trade, the costs of tariffs, the effects of currency movements, and the supposed ease with which the United States could quickly re-establish itself as a low-cost manufacturer, Trump risks shredding the safety nets that have undergirded the U.S. economy for decades and plunging us into a war we are ill-equipped to fight.

The prevailing view is that a trade war hurts both sides, but in a war of attrition, we can both outpunch and outlast the competition. Many argue that based on its smaller economy, the spotty performance of its stock market, and its vital need for American customers, China is in a weaker position. With our larger economy, surging stock market, strong currency, and prodigious borrowing capacity they believe that the U.S. can pressure China to capitulate, albeit with some short-term pain.

But President Trump goes much further, and asserts that a trade war itself, not just the results that may flow from it, will be a boon to America. He believes that tariffs are currently boosting growth and are restoring our manufacturing prowess. Based on his rhetoric, it’s hard to imagine why we would ever want a trade war to end. CNBC’s Jim Cramer went one step further, arguing that tariffs may place a small burden on U.S. consumers but Chinese manufacturers will cut prices in order to preserve U.S. market share. In other words, China will throw itself on a grenade meant for us by bearing the cost of the tariffs, and their expenditures will flow directly into U.S. coffers.

Many are also arguing that China’s potentially heaviest weapon, its ability to dump more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury Bonds onto the open market, is unlikely ever to be used. They argue that such selling could cost China too dearly as it would reduce the value of China’s own Treasury holdings and strengthen China’s currency against the dollar, thereby further disadvantaging Chinese exporters looking for U.S. market share.

Before I delve into the emptiness of these arguments about tariffs and Treasuries, a quick word about Trump’s negotiating skill and his potential motivation. For weeks, he has been saying that the Chinese have been dragging their feet because “they were being beaten so badly” in the negotiations. Basic tactics would suggest that a way to get your adversaries to agree to a deal that is not in their interest is to convince them that it is in their interest. By saying loudly that the deal favors the U.S., Trump is not exactly pushing them over the finish line. In my mind, Trump may not want the agreement. He may just want the war instead. More importantly, the economic uncertainty could force the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, which may be his most desired outcome.

While it is true that the Chinese have illegally appropriated huge quantities of American intellectual property, I believe that we have received greater benefits in return. Without the cheap goods produced in China, prices may very well have been much higher for vast quantities of key products for U.S. consumers. And without Chinese purchases of U.S. debt, interest rates could have been much higher, making borrowing more expensive for both businesses and consumers. It’s hard to quantify just how important these benefits have been for an economy such as ours, which has been driven for decades by borrowing and spending.

Trump believes that tariffs are weapons, and that since there are many more Chinese products than American products to target, that we have an inherent advantage. But tariffs are weapons that hurt your own people. Slapping federal taxes on imported products simply means that U.S. consumers will pay more for the things they want. (Contrary to Jim Cramer’s wild optimism, the Chinese will not discount for Americans when other customers can pay in full.) Trump downplays these fears by saying it would be very easy for Americans to avoid higher prices by bringing manufacturing back home, where tariffs won’t apply. He seems to believe American firms that have relied on foreign production for decades can just start producing domestically. This is a fantasy.

Take for instance an American company like Nike. The Oregon-based footwear behemoth employs 70,000 American workers in product design, sales, marketing, finance, operations, strategic development, and R&D. But the company hasn’t mass-manufactured footwear in the U.S. in decades. That task has fallen largely to the Chinese and other South East Asian nations. What would it take for Nike to begin manufacturing millions of pairs of athletic footwear in the U.S?

Currently no such facilities exist domestically, so they would have to be built. That would take years, and be a real cost. Where would Nike get the money? It might have to cancel its share buybacks, or issue new share offerings to raise money to fund the capital expenditures. If this were to happen at a time of falling profits, its share price might drop. If all U.S. companies now relying on imports did likewise, what impact might that have on the stock market?

But more importantly, factories don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be linked to a supply chain. Large quantities of rubber, leather, vinyl and cotton would need to be delivered to the factory. And if those materials don’t exist in adequate supply, other factories that could produce them would need to be built as well, substantially raising the cost to the U.S. economy. But more than just the cost, it’s the time it would take. This is not something that happens quickly. And when Nike gets up and running, assuming it had survived years of low production, it would be very hard-pressed to produce its shoes at its current costs. If all U.S. companies did this at once, consumer prices could surge and retail sales fall. But the long hoped-for manufacturing jobs could be slow to materialize.

In contrast to how difficult and painful it could be for the U.S. to ramp up domestic production, it may prove relatively easy for China to ramp up domestic consumption. Suppose Nike stopped producing sneakers in China, and abandoned the facilities it once used. The workers, the factory and the supply chain would still exist. New owners could move in, take over, and begin producing sneakers. If the U.S. market were closed to that production, the new owners would have to find customers elsewhere. I assume that Chinese consumers have feet (maybe a bit smaller), and would appreciate cool-looking sneakers.

Mainstream analysts argue that China simply doesn’t have the purchasing power to replace America’s consumptive capacity. But purchasing power is largely a function of currency valuation. And if the Chinese currency were to rise in value, Chinese consumers would then be able to buy more. Which brings us to the next issue, Chinese dollar reserves. By selling their reserves, China can strengthen its currency, and help to build the domestic economy that it has long desired.

Contrary to the current consensus, I think there may be a sharp and sudden selling of U.S. Treasuries by China, which would hurt the U.S. and benefit China. Selling Treasuries could push up long-term interest rates in the U.S. and weaken the dollar, possibly generating inflation and slowing the economy. Americans would face much higher prices for goods and would have to pay more to borrow to buy homes and cars, or to build businesses. This might force the Fed to deliver greater monetary stimulus as the economy slowed, further weakening the dollar, and putting the U.S. into a possibly dangerous inflationary spiral. The countless benefits that accrue to Americans as a result of a strong dollar would be lost.

Conversely, dumping its cache of more than $1 trillion in Treasuries could strengthen the RMB. But a strong currency is precisely what China needs to drive domestic consumption and lessen its “dependence” on exports. This has been its stated economic goal anyway. A cheap currency may help exports, but a strong currency empowers domestic consumption. Such a move could help China mature into a healthier and more balanced economy.

However, there is an added benefit to China from selling Treasuries (or merely allowing them to mature without rolling over the principal). All of those savings currently being loaned to the U.S. government would then be available to finance its domestic projects. The extra capital at home could allow China to increase production even further to meet the increased consumption demands of a rapidly growing middle class enriched by the increased purchasing power of their savings and wages.

But it’s not just China that could dump Treasuries and enjoy the possible twin benefits of increased purchasing power and domestic investment, but the rest of the world as well, particularly South East Asia. That entire region might witness the benefits if local trade, investment, and consumption all rose. Countries might no longer compete to debase their currencies to preserve market share in the U.S., but allow their currencies to rise, engendering the possibility for increased domestic investment and consumption.

So not only does Trump risk blowing America’s great deal with China, but with the entire world. The dollar’s role as the reserve currency could be lost, as would the artificially high living standards it has produced. Americans would finally be forced to live within their highly diminished means. Borrowing would have to be financed from the shallow pool of domestic savings, and consumption would be limited by domestic production, as imports would have to be paid for with exports of real products rather than mere paper dollars.

While Custer believed blindly in his own invincibility, in the end he was only a general with about 300 unlucky cavalrymen under his command. But his defeat was just a temporary setback, as the weight of the American economy ultimately overwhelmed the Native Americans’ ability to defend their traditional way of life. While Trump’s blunder will be equally as foolish as Custer’s, this time it’s the modern American way of life that may be lost.


The trouble with tech unicorns

Tech’s new stars have it all—except a path to high profits

Millions of users, cool brands and charismatic bosses are not enough




INVESTORS OFTEN describe the world of business in terms of animals, such as bears, bulls, hawks, doves and dogs. Right now, mere ponies are being presented as unicorns: privately held tech firms worth over $1bn that are supposedly strong and world-beating—miraculous almost. Next month Uber will raise some $10bn in what may turn out to be this year’s biggest initial public offering (IPO). It will be America’s third-biggest-ever tech IPO, after Alibaba and Facebook. Airbnb and WeWork could follow Lyft, which has already floated, and Pinterest, which was set to do so as The Economist went to press. In China, an IPO wave that began last year rumbles on. Thanks to fashionable products and armies of users, these firms have a total valuation in the hundreds of billions of dollars. They and their venture-capital (VC) backers are rushing to sell shares at high prices to mutual funds and pension schemes run for ordinary people. There is, however, a problem with the unicorns: their business models.

As we report this week, a dozen unicorns that have listed, or are likely to, posted combined losses of $14bn last year. Their cumulative losses are $47bn (see Briefing). Their services, from ride-hailing to office rental, are often deeply discounted in order to supercharge revenue growth. The justification for this is the Silicon Valley doctrine of “blitzscaling” in order to conquer “winner-takes-all” markets—or in plain English, conducting a high-speed land grab in the hope of finding gold. 
Yet some unicorns lack the economies of scale and barriers to entry that their promoters proclaim. At the same time, tighter regulation will constrain their freedom to move fast and break things. Investors should demand lower prices in the IPOs, or stay away. Tech entrepreneurs and their backers need to rethink what has become an unsustainable approach to building firms and commercialising ideas.

Today’s unicorn-breeding industry would not have been possible 25 years ago. In 1994 only $6bn flowed into VC funds, which doled out cheques in the single-digit millions. Before Amazon staged its IPO in 1997 it had raised a total of only $10m. Three things changed. Growing fast became easier thanks to cloud computing, smartphones and social media, which let startups spread rapidly around the world. Low interest rates left investors chasing returns. And a tiny elite of superstar firms, including Google, Facebook and China’s Alibaba and Tencent, proved that huge markets, high profits and natural monopolies, along with limited physical assets and light regulation, were the secret to untold riches. Suddenly tech became all about applying this magic formula to as many industries as possible, using piles of money to speed up the process.


Make no mistake, the unicorns are more substantial than the turkeys of the 2000 tech bubble, such as Pets.com, which went bust ten months after its IPO. Ride apps are more convenient than taxis, food delivery is lightning quick, and streaming music is better than downloading files. Like Google and Alibaba, the unicorns have large user bases. Their core businesses can avoid owning physical assets by outsourcing their IT to cloud providers. As IPO documents point out, their sales are growing fast.

The big worry is that their losses reflect not temporary growing pains but markets which are contested and customers who are promiscuous. In the key digital monopolies, the network becomes more valuable to each user the more people use it—hence Facebook’s 67% market share in social networking. The unicorns’ dynamics are not as compelling. Despite subsidies, ride-sharing customers are not locked in to one firm. No wonder Lyft’s shares have fallen by over 20% below their IPO price. Anyone can lease an office and rent out desks, not just WeWork. Some unicorns have to fight other richly funded rivals and established firms. Spotify, which listed in 2018, has a 34% share of music streaming in America and is going head-to-head with Apple.

Because the unicorns’ markets are contested, margins have not consistently improved, despite fast-rising sales. Managers are terrified of cutting their vast marketing spending, for fear of losing customers. Many firms are scrambling to develop ancillary products to try to make money from their users. And without deep moats around their businesses a permanent question-mark hangs over the unicorns: if Uber really is worth $100bn, after investing only $15bn or so, why wouldn’t its rivals keep trying their luck, or an established tech giant be tempted in?

External forces will make blitzscaling harder, too. The earlier generation of firms did not face many rules—few legislators had imagined the internet—so they could charge ahead first and beg forgiveness later. The unicorns followed suit: Airbnb sidestepped taxes on hotels and Uber drove through regulations on taxi-licensing. Today a reaction is in full swing, including over digital taxes and data and content laws. The unicorns’ investor circulars have pages dedicated to their legal dangers and gory regulatory risks.

All this is good for consumers. Money is being thrown at them; the subsidy to the public from the dozen firms amounts to $20bn a year. Whereas the commanding heights of the tech industry, such as search and social media, have been monopolised, the unicorns are at least creating competition in other areas.

Investors, meanwhile, need to hold their nerve. It is tempting to extrapolate the triumph of Google and Alibaba to an entire new group of firms. In fact, most unicorns face a long war of attrition and soggy margins. Eventually, struggling firms may be bought. And here another risk arises: most unicorns cap outside investors’ voting rights (Uber is an exception), and many have “poison pills” too, making takeovers hard and constraining investors’ ability to intervene if the firms do not eventually find a way to make enough profits to justify their IPO valuations.

And what of Silicon Valley and China’s bustling tech hubs, where the unicorn idea was dreamed up? Billions of dollars are flowing to VCs, tech founders and employees. The familiar question is how many luxury homes, philanthropic vanity projects and personal space programmes they will pay for. The urgent question is how this capital will be recycled into new technology firms. The blitzscale philosophy of buying customers at any price is peaking. After the unicorns, a new and more convincing species of startup will have to be engineered.

Bond sales running at record pace

Issuance reaches $747bn, a record in the year to date, on the back of corporate debt sales

Chelsea Bruce-Lockhart in London and Joe Rennison in New York



Bond sales are booming in 2019, running at a record pace globally for the year so far, as a pivot in monetary policy among the world’s central banks prompts a fresh binge in corporate borrowing.



Global corporate bond issuance has reached almost $747bn for the year to Monday, according to data from Dealogic, edging ahead of the previous record of $734bn issued over the same time period in 2017, which ended up being the biggest year on record for new debt sales.

A sharp U-turn in global monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve pausing further interest rate increases in the US and the European Central Bank committing to reviving growth, has breathed life into corporate debt markets.

“It is clear that the credit cycle and debtors have been given a reprieve due to the dramatic reversal from the likes of the Fed and ECB,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco. “Central banks have moved almost in lockstep in terms of changing their policy stance.”




After a period of policy tightening, the shift among central banks spells a return to the ultra-accommodative approach that boosted debt issuance in the years after the financial crisis and prompted companies to take advantage of low interest rates by borrowing more from investors.

The scale of indebtedness has caused concern among some policymakers and investors, with the International Monetary Fund warning this month that it could “amplify” an economic downturn.

In the US, the growth of lower-rated, “triple-B” company debt has caused particular consternation, with some of the most indebted companies committing to a debt diet in 2019 in an attempt to reduce leverage. On Monday, AT&T sold 9.5 per cent stake in television streaming service Hulu back to the company for $1.43bn, committing to use the funds to pay down debt.

The moderation of large US companies issuing new debt has tilted new sales towards the rest of the world, with companies like state-owned oil group Saudi Aramco and Belgian brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev in the market with bumper deals this year.

“It looked like that party had ended but now we have a stay of execution and we are seeing a revival of global bond issuance,” said Ms Hooper.

Oil, Hot Stocks, and Currencies – Part III

Chris Vermeulen
Technical Traders Ltd.



In our continued effort to help skilled traders/investors understand the future risks associated with geopolitical market turmoil, the EU Elections next week and the continued US/China trade war, this Part III of our Sector Rotation article will highlight certain sectors that we believe may continue to perform over the next 12 to 24+ months and help traders/investors survive any extended price volatility/rotation over that same time. Read Part I, and Part II.

Currently, the US stock market has weathered a bit of a jolt in terms of price rotation.  After many stock indexes reached new all-time highs, the news of Iran Oil Sanctions, US/China trade talks failing and the political turmoil in DC as an incredible 2020 US Presidential election cycle heats up,

Investors are watching the markets for any signs of strength or weakness.  Meanwhile, the US Dollar continues to strengthen against other global currencies in an incredible show of “King Dollar” strength and dominance.  All of this plays into one of our favorite narratives that we started discussing over 30 months ago – the Global Capital Shift.

For those of you who remember our many articles about this global market phenomenon and the root causes of it, we’ll try to keep the following example/explanation of it fairly short.  For those of you that are new to our research, please allow us to try to explain the Capital Shift event and why it is important to understand.

The Capital Shift started after the 2008-09 global credit market collapse.  The US and many other nations created an easy money policy that was designed to spark investment and recovery across the globe.  This easy money, at first, supported failing companies and governments in order to maintain social order and structure.  After that process was completed, this capital went to work investing in under-valued global markets and assets.  As prices continued to rise and the easy money policies became rooted into the social structure, the hunt for greater returns rotated throughout the planet – diving into undervalued markets and opportunities, often with no regard for risk.

After 2014, things began to change in the US and throughout the planet.  The US entered a period of extended sideways trading that caused many investors to reconsider the “buy the dip” mentality.  In 2014-15, China initiated “capital controls” in an effort to prevent outflows of capital from a newly rich population and corporate structure.  Just before 2014, the Emerging Markets went through a period of pricing collapse which was associated with over-inflated expectations and $100+ oil.  All of that started changing in 2014~2016 as Oil prices collapsed – taking with it the expectations and promises of many Emerging Market investors and speculators.

This shifting of capital in search of “returns with a moderate degree of risk” is what we are calling the “Capital Shift Event”.  It is still taking place and it is our opinion that the US stock market will become the central focus of global capital investment over the next 4+ years.  We believe the strength of the US Dollar and the strength of the US Stock Market/US Economy will drive future capital investment into US and other US Associated major markets in an attempt to avoid risks associated with the foreign market and currency market valuations.  In other words, when the crap starts flying across the globe, cash will rush into the US and other safe-haven investments to protect real value.




Currently, the potential for another price decline in Crude Oil is rather strong with our research expecting a move back below $55 ppb over the next 4+ months.  We believe a further economic contraction across the globe with a very strong potential for increased price volatility will drive Oil prices back below $55 with a very strong potential for prices to settle near $46~48 before the downward trend is completed.

The potential for some type of price contraction over the next 12+ months will be related to how the global and localized economic concerns play out over the next 24+ months.  Yet, investors can prepare for these extended price rotations now by becoming aware of weakening price trends and the potential that certain sectors will likely be hit harder than others.  For example, the most recent price weakness in the US stock market appears to be focused in certain sectors:

Technology, Semiconductors, Scientific Instruments, Financials, Asset Management, Property Management, Banking (Generally all over the US), Consumer Goods – Electronics, Airlines, Mail Order Services, Industrial Goods, Aerospace/Defense, Farming and Farming Supply, Medical Laboratories, Medical Appliances, Oil & Gas and others.  This type of market contraction is fairly common in an early stage Commodity and Industrial economic slowdown.



The sectors that are improving over the past week are : Healthcare, Electric Utilities, Diversified Utilities, Gas Utilities, Consumer Personal Products, Consumer Confectioners, Cigarettes, Entertainment, Beverages and Soft Drinks, Meat Products, Specialty Eateries, REITS (almost all types), Credit Services, Telecom and Telecom/Communication Services.

All of these are protectionist rallies based on the US/China trade war and the market rotation away from Technology/manufacturing growth and into more consumer protectionist spending mode – where the consumer and larger firms focus on core items while expecting a mild recession within the economy.  All of this is very common at this time within the US Presidential Election cycle.  In fact, our researchers have shown that nearly 80% of the time when a major US presidential election is taking place, the US stock markets will decline within the 24 months prior to the election date.

The Monthly S&P heat map is not much different.  It is still showing weakness where we expect and strength in sectors that have been somewhat dormant over the past 4+ years.  The key to success for skilled traders is to be able to play this future price rotation very effectively as the different sectors continue to rotate headed into the 2020 US Presidential Elections and with all of the external foreign market factors taking place.




It is quite likely that the US Dollar will continue to push high, possibly well above $102, before finding any real resistance.  It is very likely that most of the US stock market will fair quite well over the next 24+ months – yet we do expect some extended price rotation over this time and we believe Technology, Financials, Real estate, and Industrial/Consumer related stock sectors could take a hit over the next 16 to 24 months.  These rotations are, again, common for this type of US Presidential Election cycle.  Skilled traders are already aware of this cycle and have begun to prepare for this event to unfold.  The unknowns of the current global market is China and the EU at present.





And with that last US Dollar chart, there you have it.  Our three-part article about how the Global Capital Shift is about to intensify and continue to drive a US Sector rotation that many traders have failed to consider.  The EU elections, the US/China trade wars, and the US Presidential Election event are all big factors in what we believe will drive in an increased level of uncertainty over the next 16~24 months.  Additionally, we are very concerned that China is very close to experiencing what we are calling a “broken backbone” over the next 12+ months.  We believe the pricing pressures in combination with a slowing economy and a consumer move into a protectionist stance could create a waterfall event in China/Asia.

Our advice for traders is to protect open long positions and to prepare for 16 to 36 months of “repositioning” of the global markets.  The US elections are certain to drive an incredible range of future expectations throughout the world.  Combine that with the EU elections, the BREXIT effort and the continued repositioning of US/China/Foreign market relations and we are setting up for a big shock-wave event in the near future.

US vs. Global Sector Rotation – What Next? Part 1

 

Our research team, at www.TheTechnicalTraders.com, have been pouring over the charts and data to identify what is likely to happen over the next 60+ days in terms of global stock market volatility vs. the US stock market expectations.  Recently, we posted a research article highlighting our Adaptive Dynamic Learning (ADL) predictive modeling system on the Transportation Index (https://www.thetechnicaltraders.com/markets-rally-hard-is-the-volatility-move-over/).  This research suggests we are still going to experience increased price volatility over the next 30 to 60+ days and that price rotation may become somewhat of a normal expectation throughout the rest of 2019.

We believe the key to understanding price volatility over the next 30+ days lies in understanding the potential causes of uncertainty and capital shifts that are taking place around the globe.

Next week, On May 23~26, 2019, the European Elections take place (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-2019-uk-vote-date-results/).  This voting encompasses all 26 EU nations where all 753 European Parliament seats may come into question.  The biggest issues are BREXIT and continue EU leadership and economic opportunities for members.  The contentious pre and post-election rancor could drive wild price swings in the global markets over the next 10+ days.

A tough stance between both nations, the United States and China, have left trade talks completely unresolved (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/chinas-tough-trade-rhetoric-leaves-talks-with-u-s-in-limbo-idUSKCN1SN207).  At this point, the currency market is attempting to absorb much of the future expectations while the US/China stock markets react to immediate news events and perceived future economic outcomes.  Overall, until this issue is resolved for both nations, the news cycles will likely drive increased price volatility across the global markets.

The US 2020 Presidential Elections are ramping up with over 24 Democratic potentials attempting to unseat President Trump.  The current new from DC regarding the continued DOJ investigations and political posturing regarding Barr, Nadler and a host of other DC actors is setting up for a “cliff hanger” outcome over the next 12+ months.  This will likely become one of the most hotly contested US Presidential election events in decades.  The news of investigations, political corruption, and a potential US political “coup” attempt is certain to keep everyone guessing over the next 2+ years.

The markets are reacting to this volatility by attempting to adjust valuations expectations and future economic outcomes in multiple forms; currency price valuations (attempting to adjust to a shifting future economic landscape as well as to attempt to mitigate risk/capital/credit issues), Stock Market price valuations (attempting to further mitigate risk/capital and credit issues, and debt rates (attempting to effectively price risk and output expectations for the future).

Here is a map of the Currency Market over the past 12 months.  We can see the dramatic shift that has taken place since the price peak in February 2018.




Overall, the US Dollar has continued to strengthen over the past 12+ months and is regaining the “King Dollar” status as the global uncertainty continue to plague foreign and EU markets. 

We don’t expect this to change in the near future.

Our continued research into the current price rotation in the US and global markets suggest that we are going to continue to experience moderately high price volatility across all markets over the next 30 to 60+ days – possibly well into the end of 2019.  As we suggested, above, the uncertainty relating to the multiple election events and global trade/geopolitical events do not present a foundation of calm and collected future guidance.  The only thing we can suggest regarding these future expectations is that the US and more mature global markets should be able to navigate these uncertain times much more effectively than emerging or “at risk” foreign markets.

Below, you will see a global Heat-Map spanning one week.  Traders should take special notice that certain EU countries are surviving the recent global price rotation quite well (France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, and others).  We believe this is the result of the fact that these economies are rather mature and consistent in their output and expectations. 

Pay attention to the South American, Asian and Caribbean nations.  It would appear that a fairly strong price contraction is taking place throughout much of these nations as the focus shifts towards the more mature markets.




The following One Month global Heat-Map highlights a slightly different economic picture for some nations, yet confirms the shorter-term (weekly) trends for many others.  Bermuda, Cayman, Germany, and Switzerland appear to be the Bullish Leaders over the past 30 days while the rest of the globe appears to be slipping into Bearish price trends.  Canada and the UK appear moderately mixed with some green showing on the heat-map – which would be expected as both of these nations are considered mature global economies with strong economic ties to the US.




We believe the next 10~30+ days are going to be filled with moderate price volatility and we expect a setup in the global markets, near the end of June 2019, where a massive price volatility explosion may take place.  This could be correlated with some trade issue, some fallout of the EU elections or some breakdown in credit/debt risks taking place between now and September 2019.  We’ll go into more detail in Part II of this research post.

This is proving to be an incredible trading year for traders who follow our trade alerts newsletter.