Leo Haviland provides clients with original, provocative, cutting-edge fundamental supply/demand and technical research on major financial marketplaces and trends. He also offers independent consulting and risk management advice.

Haviland’s expertise is macro. He focuses on the intertwining of equity, debt, currency, and commodity arenas, including the political players, regulatory approaches, social factors, and rhetoric that affect them. In a changing and dynamic global economy, Haviland’s mission remains constant – to give timely, value-added marketplace insights and foresights.

Leo Haviland has three decades of experience in the Wall Street trading environment. He has worked for Goldman Sachs, Sempra Energy Trading, and other institutions. In his research and sales career in stock, interest rate, foreign exchange, and commodity battlefields, he has dealt with numerous and diverse financial institutions and individuals. Haviland is a graduate of the University of Chicago (Phi Beta Kappa) and the Cornell Law School.


Subscribe to Leo Haviland’s BLOG to receive updates and new marketplace essays.

RSS View Leo Haviland's LinkedIn profile View Leo Haviland’s profile



The broad real trade-weighted United States dollar probably peaked at 103.2 in December 2018 (“TWD”; Federal Reserve Board, H.10; monthly average, March 1973=100). Significantly, that elevation links with the critical TWD pinnacle of December 2016 at 103.4/January 2017 at 103.3, thereby building a formidable double top barrier. This double top ends the glorious long-running major bull move which commenced in July 2011 at 80.5.

Unlike the broad real trade-weighted dollar, the broad nominal trade-weighted dollar has daily data. The broad nominal US dollar probably also formed twin peaks. It achieved an initial summit on 12/28/16 (at 128.9) and 1/3/17 (at 128.8). The nominal TWD’s recent high, 12/14/18 at 129.1, edged less than one percent beyond the 2016/17 summit.

The decline in the broad real trade-weighted dollar from its 103.2/103.4 summit probably will be fairly close to and quite possibly more than ten percent. This retreat likely will last at least for several months. The broad TWD’s wall of resistance at 103.2/103.4 probably will not be broken anytime soon. If it is, the breach likely will not be substantial; dollar depreciation will resume.


What interrelated phenomena currently are sparking, or will tend to encourage, near term and long run US dollar weakness?

Growing faith that America’s Federal Reserve Board will slow down (at least for a while) its current program of raising the Federal Funds rate represents a key factor in the establishment of December 2018’s TWD ceiling. Both the Fed Chairman and other US central bank guardians recently spoke of the need for “patience” on the rate increase front. For example, note Chairman Powell’s remarks before the Economic Club of Washington, DC (see the NYTimes, 1/11/19, pB3). Read the transcript of his 1/4/19 comments in an Atlanta, GA conference with other past Fed Chairs.

By reducing the likelihood of (at least) near term boosts in the Federal Funds rate, and thereby cutting the probability of notable yield increases for US government debt securities, the Fed makes the US dollar less appealing (less likely to appreciate further) in the perspective of many marketplace players. The Fed’s less aggressive rate-raising scheme (at minimum, a pause in that “normalization” process) mitigates enthusiasm for the US dollar from those aiming to take advantage of interest rate yield differentials (as well as those hoping for appreciation in the value of other dollar-denominated assets such as American stocks or real estate relative to the foreign exchange value of the given home currency). Capital flows into the dollar may slow, or even reverse to some extent.


Another consideration constructing a noteworthy broad real TWD top is emerging optimism that tariff battles and other aspects of trade wars between America and many of its key trading partners (especially China) will become less fierce. Both the US and China increasingly are nervous regardless the ability of their nations to maintain adequate real GDP increases.

The current United States China 90 day negotiation deadline is 3/1/19. The NYTimes reported signs of Chinese concessions (1/9/18, ppA1, 8). US trade deals with China and other noteworthy nations reduce the incentive for those countries to depreciate their currency relative to the dollar in order to maintain market share for their goods and services within America. Such deals with China may well be vague or not amount to much in actual practice, but even cosmetic progress on the trade war battlefields will tend to weaken the dollar.

Signs of an armistice with China would bolster confidence that US trade feuds with Europe (particularly Germany) will subside. For the near term, the late 2018 deal between the US Administration with Canada and Mexico changing NAFTA treaty arrangements has lessened marketplace agitation regarding trade conflicts in that arena. Whether Congress eventually will enact this deal or a version close to it remains uncertain.

The current US Administration may seek a weaker US dollar relative to current heights in order to stimulate the economy as election season 2020 approaches.


The substantial and worsening United States debt situation, particularly in the federal sector as a result of the end-December 2017 tax “reform” legislation, nowadays encourages and increasingly will assist long run dollar depreciation. In its bearish implications for the broad real TWD, this ominous US debt variable at present is somewhat independent of near term Federal Reserve Board and other key central bank policy action and rhetoric as well as the outcome of trade negotiations. However, it nevertheless entangles with these phenomena.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Facing a Wall- Emerging US Dollar Weakness (1-15-19)


“What You Own”, a song from the musical “Rent” (by Jonathan Larson), declares: “You’re living in America at the end of the millennium- you’re living in America, where it’s like the twilight zone.”



American home prices have enjoyed a joyous climb since their dismal lows following the global economic disaster of 2007-09. However, United States home prices “in general” (“overall”) now probably are establishing an important peak. At least a modest reversal of the magnificent long-run bullish United States home price trend probably is near.

What is a high (too high), low (too low), expensive, cheap, average, good, bad, neutral, normal, typical, reasonable, commonsense, appropriate, fair value, overvalued, undervalued, natural, equilibrium, rational, irrational, or bubble level for prices or any other marketplace variable is a matter of opinion. Subjective perspectives differ. In any case, current US home price levels nevertheless appear quite high, particularly in comparison to the lofty heights of the amazing Goldilocks Era. As current American home price levels (even if only in nominal terms) hover around or float significantly above those of the Goldilocks Era, this hints that such prices probably are vulnerable to a noteworthy bearish move. Moreover, measures of global home prices and US commercial real estate also have surpassed their highs from about a decade ago and thus arguably likewise may suffer declines.

Many United States housing indicators in general currently appear fairly strong, particularly in relation to their weakness during or in the aftermath of the global economic crisis. Nevertheless, assorted American housing variables as well as other phenomena related to actual home price levels probably warn of upcoming declines in American home (and arguably other real estate) prices. A couple of US home price surveys have reported price declines for very recent months. US housing affordability has declined. New single-family home sales display signs of weakness, as do new privately-owned housing starts. American government interest rate yields, as well as US mortgage rates, have edged up. The Federal Reserve Board as of now likely will continue to tighten and raise rates for a while longer. Overall household debt, though not yet burdensome (at least for many), now exceeds the pinnacle reached ten years ago in 3Q08. The economic stimulus from America’s December 2017 tax “reform” probably is fading. US consumer confidence dipped in November 2018.

Marketplace history of course does not necessarily repeat itself, either entirely or even partly. Convergence and divergence (lead/lag) relationships between marketplace trends and other variables can shift or transform, sometimes dramatically. Price and time trends for the American stock marketplace and US housing prices do not move precisely together. However, the international 2007-09 crisis experience (which in part strongly linked to US real estate issues) indicates that prices for US stocks and housing probably will peak around the same time, or at least “more or less together” (a lag of several months between the stock high and the home price pinnacle). The S+P 500 probably established a major high in autumn 2018 (9/21/18 at 2941, 10/3/18 at 2940; the broad S&P Goldman Sachs Commodity Index peaked 10/3/18 at 504). That autumn equity summit in the S+P 500 bordered 1/26/18’s interim top at 2873. Ongoing weakness in US (and international) stock marketplaces will help to undermine American home prices.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
American Housing- a Marketplace Weathervane (12-4-18)


In “The Age of Anxiety”, the poet W.H. Auden remarks: “Gradually for each in turn the darkness begins to dissolve and their vision to take shape.”



Since summer 2016, using the 10 year central government note as a benchmark, global interest rate yields for leading nations “in general” gradually have risen. The United States has been the key nation propelling “overall” debt yields upward. Also since summer 2016, marketplace trend twists and turns from the price and time perspective for this assortment of nations usually has been fairly close.

Relatively strong American economic growth and tightening Federal Reserve Board policies have played important roles in the worldwide rate increase process. The reduction of central bank yield repression is and will remain a crucial factor underpinning the long run yield increase trend. Even the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan, which have ongoing lax monetary policies, suggest they eventually will become slightly less accommodative.

Significant global credit demand in an environment where overall global debt (government, corporate, household) already is substantial also is an important element tending to boost global yields. The international government debt level as a percentage of GDP nowadays is much greater than at the advent of the 2007-09 global economic disaster. For many countries, including America, there is little likelihood for notable government debt reduction anytime soon.

Expanding United States federal budget deficits resulting from December 2017’s exciting tax “reform” legislation probably have encouraged the ascent in American yields. Given the importance of America in the interconnected global economy, the US national budget deficit and debt level trends as a percentage of GDP not only will continue to generate US Treasury rate climbs over the long run, but also will assist a global upswing in yields. America’s tax reform scheme exacerbated the already massive long run federal budget problem (big deficits alongside entitlement spending, etc.; higher demand for credit). By helping to push American US government interest rates higher, the tax reform magnifies the country’s monumental debt challenge.


Despite the broadly similar rising yield trend direction and convergence links (connections, associations) across the central (federal) government note marketplaces since summer 2016, the pattern of course is not always perfect. Also, as time passes, divergence within this “overall upward trend” may emerge. For example, whereas the US Treasury 10 year note’s yield high to date since summer 2016 is 10/9/18’s 3.26 percent,  the German Bund (81 percent on 2/8/18) and China’s 10 year central government note (11/22/17’s 4.04pc) attained their highs many months earlier. In addition, rate climbs are not all necessarily the same in distance or speed terms. For countries engaged in substantial yield repression, the advance may be fairly small and slow for quite a while.


Fearful “flights to quality” occasionally may inspire yield falls in so-called safe haven government debt instruments issued by nations such as America, Germany, and Japan. Central banks likely will become (or remain) highly accommodative if the global recovery appears seriously threatened. The reality of or omens pointing to feebler than expected (desired) GDP growth (in conjunction with other variables) may spark such yield declines, and perhaps also induce renewed accommodative central bank actions (or at least soothing rhetoric from such earnest guardians).

In the current marketplace situation, additional notable erosion in the prices of global stock marketplace benchmarks from their calendar 2018 summits might also inspire relatively significant retreats in debt yields. For example, a decline in the S+P 500 of nearly twenty percent or more from its autumn 2018 peak could connect with government yield declines (and perhaps with the emergence of central bank propaganda or action to rally stock prices).


The major (long run) trend for US government interest rate yields, and for other nations around the globe, probably remains up. Despite tumultuous twists and turns, the long run upward march in government interest rate yields which commenced around the middle of 2016 likely will remain intact. The UST 10 year note’s 3.26 percent high yield will be exceeded.

However, the declines in global stock marketplaces (especially the S+P 500’s slump since its September 2018/October 2018 peak), especially if interpreted alongside the failure of German and Chinese 10 year government notes to establish yield new yield highs close in time to those in the UST (and other important countries), warn that a temporary halt to (or noteworthy slowdown in) the overall global pattern of rising government rates (including in America) is being established. Some yield declines in government notes may be rather dramatic. However, based upon a perspective of a long run extending for several years from now, such yield descents probably will be temporary.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Twists, Turns, and Turmoil- US and Other Government Note Trends (11-12-18)


The famous military philosopher and analyst Carl von Clausewitz states in “On War” (Book Two, chapter 3; italics in original): “Rather than comparing it [war] to art we could more accurately compare it to commerce, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still closer to politics, which in turn may be considered as a kind of commerce on a larger scale.”



In late 2012, the Japanese political leadership dramatically unveiled its three “arrows” of easy money, flexible fiscal policy, and structural reform to improve the country’s economic performance. In practice, those Japanese political authorities generally represent major financial (corporate; commercial) interests (“Japan, Inc.”). The Bank of Japan’s policies since late 2012, though nominally independent of political and economic power centers, in practice reflects the goals of Japan’s substantial entrenched economic groups and the political representatives and bureaucrats aligned with them.

Monetary policy of course is not the only factor affecting GDP, inflation, and other intertwined variables. Yet Japan’s ongoing government fiscal deficit, though somewhat helpful for promoting growth and inflation, is not the most noteworthy element in the country’s policy array since end-2012. Moreover, the general government debt burden remains massive and likely will remain so for many years. According to the International Monetary Fund, Japan’s general government gross debt as a percent of GDP was 236.4 percent in 2017 (contrast the G-7 average of 118.6pc that year) and forecast at 236.0pc for 2018 and 234.2pc in 2019, dipping only slightly to 229.6pc by 2023 (“Fiscal Monitor”, April 2018, Table A7; the October 2018 update probably will not change Japan’s government debt as a percent of GDP statistics substantially). And structural reform in Japan, which usually crawls forward slowly, has been unremarkable.

The extremely easy monetary policy arrow embraced by the accommodative Japanese central bank for almost six years is the country’s critical weapon. The central bank chief faithfully and repeatedly proclaims that sustained inflation of two percent is a praiseworthy goal (as essentially do the sermons preached by other leading central banks such as the Federal Reserve Board and the European Central Bank). The Bank of Japan’s ongoing tools to achieve its aims include sustained yield repression and massive quantitative easing (money printing). So far, the Bank of Japan, despite its determination, has not come close to achieving two percent inflation. The consumer price trend in recent months manifests merely minor progress on that front. And although Japan’s quarterly GDP for April-June 2018 may signal enhanced year-on-year economic performance, International Monetary Fund forecasts are not as sunny.

Yet what else has the Bank of Japan (as a representative and reflection of the country’s political and economic generals) really battled to achieve via its remarkably lax monetary strategy? A notion of improved and acceptable economic growth and frequent reference to an iconic two percent “price stability target” do not offer a complete story. Moreover, the enthusiastic declaration of assorted monetary policy plans and tactics does not directly reveal important aspects about the economic (financial; commercial; marketplace) landscape within which the interrelated GDP and inflation goals are targeted and such extraordinary easy money programs are designed and applied.

In practice, what are the intermediate connections (means; methods) to the achievement of the allegedly ultimate ends of satisfactory growth and sufficient inflation? One key approach of the Bank of Japan’s magnificent scheme relates to currency depreciation, the other to stock marketplace appreciation. Japan’s central bank sentinel quietly has aimed to achieve the related objectives of Yen weakness and Japanese stock marketplace strength.

In recent times, Japan deliberately has kept a relatively low profile in foreign exchange, trade, and tariff conflicts. Compare the furious racket nowadays, especially since the advent of the Trump presidency, around the United States and China (and also in regard to the European Union, Mexico/Canada/NAFTA).

Nevertheless, for several years, Japan has waged a trade war (engaged in fierce currency competition) without capturing much international political attention or media coverage. The Bank of Japan (and its political and economic allies) in recent years has fought vigorously to depreciate the Yen (especially on an effective exchange rate basis) and thereby to bolster Japan’s current account surplus. Japan’s overall economic growth relies significantly on its net export situation. The Yen’s substantial retreat and its subsequent stay at a relatively low level and the significant expansion in the country’s current account surplus are glorious triumphs.

Since late 2012, the Bank of Japan also has struggled ferociously to rally the Japanese stock marketplace (boost corporate profits). As of early autumn 2018, this guardian has achieved significant victories in this campaign as well.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Japan- Financial Archery, Shooting Arrows (10-5-18)