Showing posts with label Economic history of the Dutch Republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic history of the Dutch Republic. Show all posts

Friday, June 9, 2017

Household Wealth Has Never Been Higher Relative To Income

For 45 years - until roughly 1994 - the average wealth-to-income of American households had held steady around 4.9x. Then the stock bubbles started, first under Greenspan, then Bernanke, and now, Yellen and really every other central bank, and as a result as of Q1 2017 for the first time in US history, household wealth reached a point where it is over 6.6 times larger than inflation-adjusted household disposable income in America.



As we showed earlier in the day, the surge in wealth, driven almost entirely by new all time highs in the S&P, pushed this measure of relative exuberance (think of it as the country"s price-to-earnings ratio) above the housing boom peak of mid-2000s and well above the dot-com bubble driven highs of the last 1990s.



As Alliance Bernstein economist Joe Carson recently wrote in a note: "Economic and financial history do not always repeat, but sometimes they do."


The logical next question is how much higher can this disconnect go, before something snaps?

Monday, June 5, 2017

"They're Going To Have All Sorts Of Issues" - Citi Urges Regulators To Address Australia's "Spectacular Housing Bubble"

Citigroup Chief Economist Willem Buiter says Australia is experiencing “a spectacular housing bubble” that needs to be addressed with tougher regulatory measures – something we’ve noted time and time again.


A shortage of housing, coupled with record-low interest rates, has made Sydney the world’s most second-most expensive property market. The city’s home prices jumped 16% in the 12 months through April, stoking record household debt and putting home ownership out of the reach of many.



"It had better be focused on immediately, to try and tether a soft housing landing,” Buiter told reporters in Sydney Wednesday, according to Bloomberg. “Clearly if these things are not managed well they can be a trigger for a cyclical downturn.”


Australia’s biggest banks have been tightening their lending standards under pressure from regulators, making home loans for investors and interest-only mortgages more expensive, Bloomberg reported.


The Reserve Bank of Australia, which has cited the east-coast property markets and their impact on financial stability as a key concern, is in a tough spot. While it’s reluctant to cut the benchmark interest rate from 1.5 percent and stoke prices even higher, lifting borrowing costs would place a greater burden on households saddled with debt already at 189 percent of gross domestic product, Bloomberg reported.


Investors, for their part, are starting to come around to the dangerously overvalued nature of Australian stock and housing markets. Earlier this week, Australian asset manager Altair Asset Management made the extraordinary decision to liquidate its Australian shares funds and return "hundreds of millions" of dollars to its clients according to the Sydney Morning Herald, citing an impending property market "calamity" and the "overvalued and dangerous time in this cycle".



Parker said he wanted "to make clear this is not a winding up of Altair, but a decision to hand back client monies out of equities which I deem to be far too risky at this point."


"We think that there is too much risk in this market at the moment, we think it"s crazy," Parker said with a candidness few of his colleagues are capable of, at least when still managing money.





"Valuations are stretched, property is massively overstretched and most of the companies that we follow are at our one-year rolling returns targets – and that"s after we"ve ticked them up over the past year. Now we are asking "is there any more juice in these companies valuations?" and the answer is stridently, and with very few exceptions, "no there isn"t"."



Parker outlined a list of "the more obvious reasons to exit the riskier asset markets of shares and property". These include:


  • the Australian east-coast property market "bubble" and its "impending correction";

  • worries that issues around China"s hot property sector and escalating debt levels will blow up "later this year";

  • "oversized" geopolitical risks and an "unpredictable" US political environment;

  • and the "overvalued" Aussie equity market.

But, to Parker, it was the overheated local property market that was the clearest and most present danger. "When you speak to people candidly in the banks, they"ll tell you very specifically that they are extraordinarily worried about the over-leverage of the Australian population in general," he said. He flagged how exposed the country"s lenders were to a correction.





"If they get a property downturn anything similar to 1989 to 1991 then they are going to have all sorts of issues," Parker said.


Friday, May 26, 2017

Without FANG Stocks, the Market Has Gone Nowhere For Three Months

For weeks I’ve been noting that stocks are being driven by a market rig.


By way of review, that rig is as follows:


1)   Someone slams the VIX lower.


2)   This forces risk-parity funds to buy stocks, usually the FANGs or large-cap Tech names (Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google).


3)   FANGs rally, which due to the weighting in the S&P 500, forces the overall market higher.


The last point is key.


When you remove the influence of FANG stocks (Facebook, Apple, Netflix, and Google) by giving every company in the index equal weighting, you find that the market has yet to reclaim its former peak May peak.


sc


Why does this matter?


Because ALL market rigs, no matter how clever, ultimately fail. And when they do, the failure can be MASSIVE.


Remember this one? This was a market rig than worked for months… and then failed spectacularly in a single day:


GPC526172


A Crash is coming... it"s going to horrific.


We offer a FREE investment report outlining when the bubble will burst as well as what investments will pay out massive returns to investors when this happens. It"s called The Biggest Bubble of All Time (and three investment strategies to profit from it).


Today is the last day this report will be available to the public.


To pick up your FREE copy...


CLICK HERE!


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Stocks Sink As Big Banks Stumble Deeper Into Red

"Financials" fade.


LMAO.  Let"s call them what they really are FFS:  Insolvent social welfare recipients !!!!


Fucking banks, lol.  They are licensed white-collar criminals in our midst yet no one will do anything to fight CRIME.  The populace is simply too apathetic and too addicted to credit.


END the FED and we end this financial repression.  Many will then have a real life, not a slave life.  If you think your slavery index ( I mean, credit rating ) is something to be cherished then you"ve bought into the grand financial lie these big banks are peddling.  Continue being a good slave at your peril.

'The Everything Bubble': Why The Coming Collapse Will Be Even Worse Than The Last

The next crash is coming, and the decision by central banks to paper over their economy"s troubles with a massive injection of debt likely means that the next crash is already overdue.


Soon, investors will be forced to reconcile a massive expansion of debt and falling productivity and growth with a host of potentially disruptive crises: The advent of government-sponsored cyberwarfare, followed by the collapse of the global dollar-based monetary system. Whereas the last crisis trigger massive devaluations in the real estate and stock markets, the next crash will be the result of a triple bubble in stocks, real estate and bonds as investors bail out of traditional assets in favor of the safety of gold, silver and - perhaps - cryptocurrencies like bitcoin.


Gold analyst Mike Maloney believes that traditional assets will plunge, and gold, silver and cryptocurrencies like bitcoin will outperform, as investors seek protection from the coming collapse of the global dollar system. Maloney explains his thinking in a new YouTube video "The Everything Bubble."



In the U.S., housing prices have experienced a halting recovery since the subprime crisis. But in other markets, like New Zealand, Canada, a frenzy of buying by wealthy Chinese hoping to stash their money abroad kept prices afloat, driving the ratio of home prices to incomes to all time highs. In Canada, the affordability index - the ratio of housing prices to incomes - has risen to an all-time high of 1.4.




In the stock market, a few vulnerabilities have emerged; the ratio of debt borrowed against investors" brokerage account balances has reached all-time highs, which tells you that recent gains are vulnerable to a short-squeeze - which is when brokerages close clients out of their positions.



Worth noting: the rise in margin debt has traced the run-up in the S&P 500.


The VIX - a gauge of expected volatility - has fallen to multi-decade lows, suggesting that markets have grown complacent in the face of the coming crash. Earnings-per-share ratios are looking precariously stretched to dot-com-era levels.



And, finally, a look at intraday trading patterns also reveals signs of strain: Maloney, borrowing from the research of John Hussman of Hussman Funds, the former University of Michigan finance professor who famously predicted the 2008 crisis, explains that lately he"s seen what he calls "exhaustion gaps" appearing with increasing frequency. Hussman defines an "exhaustion gap" as any time the S&P 500 opens 0.5% above its previous close while its within 2% of its all-time high. These gaps show that the supply of capital pouring into the market is thinning, or " that there are no more suckers willing to buy at the top."



Bonds have been in a "perfect bull market" for 36 years, Maloney says. But historical patters suggest that the coming shock will likely trigger its demise: Over a span of decades, interest rates have tended to spend about equal time on either side of a peak. If this pattern holds, it would mean that the decadeslong bond-market rally only has two or three years left to run, which brings us to another important question: when the crash comes, what"s it going to look like?


Maloney believes it will unfold in two stages:





In the first, investors will flood into the perceived safety of bond markets, causing a temporary spike, as stocks and real estate markets collapse.



Then all three markets will plummet as the collapse of a catastrophic pile of debt brings about the end of the global dollar-based monetary system.



In the 20th Century, shifts in the global monetary paradigm have occurred about every 30-50 years.



And shifts in secular bond-market trends have tended to mirror them. Maloney, who has long advocated owning gold and silver, also revealed that he has purchased a small share of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, though he cautions against owning an outside position. Rising demand in the East has been offsetting falling demand in the U.S. So far, excess capacity in the U.S. market has helped compensate for this as the East has attracted Western gold.


But soon this imbalance will be ameliorated, and the price of gold - which has already risen modestly year-to-date - will see a large, sustained rise.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

The Market Rig of the Last Two Weeks is Now Ending

The $USD/Yen prop is now actively being pulled.


For two weeks straight “somebody” was pinning stocks by ramping the $USD/ Yen pair. You can see the tight correlation between the two in the chart below.



This resulted in a one in 125 years event: a 10-day period in which stocks didn’t move more than 0.2%. And we’ve even had confirmation now that the last 15 days have seen the LEAST movement in stocks in history.


However, now that we’re on to their game, the rampers are giving up. The $USD/Yen pair is now breaking down in a big way.  



The downside target for this move will be 2,200 on the S&P 500.



And if the rampers REALLY let go, we’re looking at a much larger drop than that.



Are you ready?


We offer a FREE investment report outlining when the bubble will burst as well as what investments will pay out massive returns to investors when this happens. It"s called The Biggest Bubble of All Time (and three investment strategies to profit from it).


We made 1,000 copies to the general public.


Only 29 are left.


To pick up your FREE copy...


CLICK HERE!


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Public Service Announcement for Stock Investors

Dear reader, if you are overcome with fear of missing out on the next stock market move; if you feel like you have to own stocks no matter the cost; if you tell yourself, “Stocks are expensive, but I am a long-term investor”; then consider this article a public service announcement written just for you.


 Before we jump into the stock discussion, let’s quickly scan the global economic environment. The health of the European Union did not improve in 2016, and Brexit only increased the possibility of other “exits” as the structural issues that render this union dysfunctional went unfixed. 


Japan’s population has not gotten any younger since the last time I wrote about it — it is still the oldest in the world. Japan’s debt pile got bigger, and it remains the most indebted developed nation (though, in all fairness, other countries are desperately trying to take that title away from it). Despite the growing debt, Japanese five-year government bonds are “paying” an interest rate of –0.10 percent. Imagine what will happen to its government’s budget when Japan has to start actually paying to borrow money commensurate with its debtor profile.


 Regarding China, there is little I can say that I have not said before. The bulk of Chinese growth is coming from debt, which is growing at a much faster pace than the economy. This camel has consumed a tremendous quantity of steroids over the years, which have weakened its back — we just don’t know which straw will break it.


 S&P 500 earnings have stagnated since 2013, but this has not stopped analysts from launching their forecasts every year with expectations of 10–20 percent earnings growth . . . before they gradually take them down to near zero as the year progresses. The explanation for the stagnation is surprisingly simple: Corporate profitability overall has been stretched to an extreme and is unlikely to improve much, as profit margins are close to all-time highs (corporations have squeezed about as much juice out of their operations as they can). And interest rates are still low, while corporate and government indebtedness is very high — a recipe for higher interest rates and significant inflation down the road, which will pressure corporate margins even further.


 I am acutely aware that all of the above sounds like a broken record. It absolutely does, but that doesn’t make it any less true; it just makes me sound boring and repetitive. We are in one of the last innings (if only I knew more about baseball) of the eight-year-old bull market, which in the past few years has been fueled not by great fundamentals but by a lack of good investment alternatives.


 Starved for yield, investors are forced to pick investments by matching current yields with income needs, while ignoring riskiness and overvaluation. Why wouldn’t they? After all, over the past eight years we have observed only steady if unimpressive returns and very little realized risk. However, just as in dating, decisions that are made due to a “lack of alternatives” are rarely good decisions, as new alternatives will eventually emerge — it’s just a matter of time.


 The average stock out there (that is, the market) is very, very expensive. At this point it almost doesn’t matter which valuation metric you use: price to ten-year trailing earnings; stock market capitalization (market value of all stocks) as a percentage of GDP (sales of the whole economy); enterprise value (market value of stocks less cash plus debt) to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) — they all point to this: Stocks were more expensive than they are today only once in the past century, that is, during the dot-com bubble. 


In reference to this fact, my friend and brilliant short-seller Jim Chanos said with a chuckle, “I am buying stocks here, because once they went higher . . . for a year.”


 Investors who are stampeding into expensive stocks through passive index funds are buying what has worked — and is likely to stop working. But mutual funds are not much better. When I meet new clients, I get a chance to look at their mutual fund holdings. Even value mutual funds, which in theory are supposed to be scraping equities from the bottom of the stock market barrel, are full of pricey companies. Cash (which is another way of saying, “I’m not buying overvalued stocks”) is not a viable option for most equity mutual fund managers. Thus this market has turned professional investors into buyers not of what they like but of what they hate the least (which reminds me of our political climate).


 In 2016 less than 10 percent of actively managed funds outperformed their benchmarks (their respective index funds) on a five-year trailing basis. Unfortunately, the last time this happened was 1999, during the dot-com bubble, and we know how that story ended.


 To summarize the requirements for investing in an environment where decisions are made not based on fundamentals but due to a lack of alternatives, we are going to paraphrase Mark Twain: “All you need in this life [read: lack-of-alternatives stock market] is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” To succeed in the market that lies ahead of us, one will need to have a lot of confidence in his ignorance and exercise caution and prudence, which will often mean taking the path that is far less traveled.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

We're Back to Late 2007... or early 2000 (Remember How Those Ended?)

The market is rising… or is it?


The number of individual S&P 500 companies above their 200-day moving averages (200-DMA) has rolled over.


Put simply, the broader market is NOT confirming this move in stocks.



So overall the momentum is leaving the market... but still the stock market index is going higher...


Why is this?


Because the market is being propped up by just a handful of Tech Companies.


Those companies are: Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet.


These are the single most popular companies on the planet, with every fund manager, and even the Swiss National Bank loading up on them


Remove these companies from the market, and the markets are DOWN.


Why does this matter?


Because the fundamentals for these companies are rolling over. And the investment crowd will soon be running to the exits.


Take Apple.


Sales for Apple’s #1 product (the iPhone) began to decline a year ago.  They’ve declined in THREE of the last four quarters on a Year Over Year basis.


Throughout this same time period, the company’s stock price has risen an astounding 75%.



So… Apple’s stock has risen 75%... during a time in which its #1 product is selling less... and its trailing twelve-month revenues are below its 2015 results.


And this company, (and a handful of others like it), is holding the entire market up!


We are literally back to how the market was in late 2007… or early 2000 depending on how you look at it.


We all remember how those situations ended.


We offer a FREE investment report outlining when the bubble will burst as well as what investments will pay out massive returns to investors when this happens. It"s called The Biggest Bubble of All Time (and three investment strategies to profit from it).


We made 1,000 copies to the general public.


As I write this a mere 79 are left.


To pick up your FREE copy...


CLICK HERE!


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Monday, May 8, 2017

Jack Bogle Warns Of Market "Chaos, Catastrophe" If Passive Investing Wins

In 2016 investors poured $480 billion into passive funds, a mix of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, while pulling more than $380 billion from active mutual funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Passive equity investments may become as much as 45 percent of the mutual fund industry within five years as investors move to low-cost funds, Bogle said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio in March. But just how much can the market take?


"If everybody indexed, the only word you could use is chaos, catastrophe," warned Jack Bogle, 88-year-old founder of Vanguard, at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting on Saturday.






“There would be no trading,” Bogle told Yahoo Finance editor-in-chief Andy Serwer. “There would be no way to turn a stream of income into a pile of capital or a pile of capital into a stream of income... the markets would fail."



“We have too much trading in the market,” Bogle said. “The index really just neutralizes x-percent of the market… And it just, those stocks don’t get traded. So the other stocks would get traded, the market would go on as ever."



“So [the market] gets a little less efficient, but if it gets less efficient some managers can win by more. And some managers will lose by more. This is the equation. So, I’m not concerned about it. It’s going to take a long, long time [for indexing to get] anywhere near 50% [of the market], and things will change a lot in other ways by then."



“Markets are going to be efficient as long as there are managers, or investors, trying to find little holes in the system... price discovery, as they call it,” Bogle said.



Yahoo"s Myles Udland reports that currently, Bogle notes, about one-quarter of the U.S. stock market is currently indexed. In his view, indexing could account for 50% of the market “easily.” Asked by Serwer what level of indexing would concern him, Bogle said he expects indexing could exceed 75% of the market and not have it become dangerous.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

"Mystery" Central Bank Buyer Revealed, Goes On Q1 Buying Spree

In the first few months of the year, a trading desk rumor emerged that even as institutional traders dumped stocks and retail investors piled into ETFs, a "mystery" central bank was quietly bidding up risk assets by aggressively buying stocks. And no, it was not the BOJ: while the Japanese Central Bank"s interventions in the stock market are familiar to all by now, and as we reported last night on sessions when the "the BoJ comes in big, the average return on the [Nikkei] is about 14 basis points higher" with Nomura calculating that "the BoJ has provided a cumulative boost to the Nikkei of about 1,400 points"...




... the one thing about the BOJ is that it keeps its interventions local, and tends to mostly prop up Japanese stocks, whether the Nikkei 225 or the Topix.


The answer was revealed on Friday when the hedge fund known as the "Swiss National Bank" posted its latest 13-F holdings. What it showed is that, as rumored, the Swiss National Bank had gone on a record buying spree in the first quarter, boosting its total equity holdings to an all time high $80.4 billion, up $17 billion from the $63.4 billion at the end of 2016, the biggest quarterly increase in "AUM" in history.



Yet while we are long beyond the point of debating the central bank intervention in equity markets (we do want to remind readers that until several years ago, it was considered "fake news" to even mention it, and those who accused central bankers of manipulating stock markets were said to be paranoid tinfoil basement dwellers), we want to point out that unlike the BOJ, which at least keeps its capital markets distortion local, the SNB, which likewise creates money out of thin air (then sells it for dollars in an attempt to keep the Swiss franc depressed) is actively resulting in even greater price distortions in the US.


While we doubt this will be investigated with stocks are at all time highs, we look forward to the Congressional hearings after the crash when the scapegoating and fingerpointing begins, and everyone is "stunned" to learn that central banks were responsible for blowing the biggest asset bubble the world has ever seen by directly buying stocks.


What else did the SNB reveal in its 13F? Two main things.


First, its top 20 holdings are as shown in the following chart. The central bank was clearly not shy in adding to its top positions, especially the top position.



And while we don"t know if Warren Buffett was actively frontrunning the SNB when he more than doubled his AAPL stake in Q1, making him a top 5 holder of the tech giant, a look at the SNB"s holdings of AAPL stock which increased from 15 to 18.9 million shares, shows why the Nasdaq - as observed earlier in the day by Goldman Sachs - just refuses to drop hitting daily all time highs.



The chart above may also explain why Goldman is bullish on the Nasdaq 100: after all, when a central bank can and does create money out of thin air, then splurges on the company that accounts for 12% of the weight in the Nasdaq, pushing the Nasdaq and all indices higher, what is the point of even talking about "risk"?


Source: SNB 13-F

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Survey Shows A Majority Of European Youth Would Participate In Uprising To Overthrow Status Quo

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,



As the title of today’s piece implies, something very rotten is happening across the Western world and it’s starting to push many people, especially the youth, toward a breaking point. In the U.S., much of the problem relates to increased corporate power and monopoly, which has resulted in a less dynamic economy characterized by a neo-feudal plantation model where a small group of people continue to rent-seek profits at the expense of society at large.


Surprisingly enough, today’s piece will zero in on the observations of fund manager Jeremy Grantham to make the point. In his quest to understand why P/E multiples and corporate profit margins have failed to revert to the prior mean over the past couple of decades, Mr. Grantham of GMO made some very important points about how the American economy has changed for the worse during the 21st century. Indeed, much of what he observes can be seen as key factors in rising income equality, which in turn leads to social instability.


Here are some of his key points from the latest GMO Quarterly Letter (it starts on page 9):





How about profit margins, the other input into the market level? Compared to the pre-1997 era, the margins have risen by about 30%. This is a large and sustained change.



Of all these many differences, the most important for understanding the stock market is, in my opinion, the much higher level of corporate profits. With higher margins, of course the market is going to sell at higher prices. So how permanent are these higher margins? I used to call pro t margins the most dependably mean-reverting series in nance. And they were through 1997. So why did they stop mean reverting around the old trend? Or alternatively, why did they appear to jump to a much higher trend level of pro ts? It is unreasonable to expect to return to the old price trends – however measured – as long as pro ts stay at these higher levels.



So, what will it take to get corporate margins down in the US? Not to a temporary low, but to a level where they uctuate, more or less permanently, around the earlier, lower average? Here are some of the influences on margins (in thinking about them, consider not only the possibilities for change back to the old conditions, but also the likely speed of such change):



– Increased globalization has no doubt increased the value of brands, and the US has much more than its fair share of both the old established brands of the Coca-Cola and J&J variety and the new ones like Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. Even much more modest domestic brands – wakeboard distributors would be a suitable example – have allowed for returns on required capital to handsomely improve by moving the capital- intensive production to China and retaining only the brand management in the US. Impeding global trade today would decrease the advantages that have accrued to US corporations, but we can readily agree that any setback would be slow and reluctant, capitalism being what it is, compared to the steady gains of the last 20 years (particularly noticeable after China joined the WTO).



– Steadily increasing corporate power over the last 40 years has been, I think it’s fair to say, the defining feature of the US government and politics in general. This has probably been a slight but growing negative for GDP growth and job creation, but has been good for corporate profit margins. And not evenly so, but skewed toward the larger and more politically savvy corporations. So that as new regulations proliferated,they tended to protect the large, established companies and hinder new entrants. Exhibit 5 shows the steady drop of net new entrants into the US business world – they have plummeted since 1970! Increased regulations cost all corporations money, but the very large can better a afford to deal with them. Thus regulations, however necessary to the well-being of ordinary people, are in aggregate anti-competitive. They form a protective moat for large, established firms. This produces the irony that the current ripping out of regulations willy-nilly will of course reduce short-term corporate costs and increase profits in the near future (other things being equal), but for the longer run, the corporate establishment’s enthusiasm for less regulation is misguided: Stripping out regulations is working to fill in its protective moat.



– Corporate power, however, really hinges on other things, especially the ease with which money can influence policy. In this, management was blessed by the Supreme Court, whose majority in the Citizens United decision put the seal of approval on corporate privilege and power over ordinary people. Maybe corporate power will weaken one day if it stimulates a broad pushback from the general public as Schumpeter predicted.  But will it be quick enough to drag corporate margins back toward normal in the next 10 or 15 years? I suggest you don’t hold your breath.



– It is hard to know if the lack of action from the Justice Department is related to the increased political power of corporations, but its increased inertia is clearly evident. There seems to be no reason to expect this to change in a hurry.



– Previously, margins in what appeared to be very healthy economies were competed down to a remarkably stable return – economists used to be amazed by this stability – driven by waves of capital spending just as industry peak profits appeared. But now in a very different world to that described in Part 1,4 there is plenty of excess capacity and a reduced emphasis on growth relative to profitability. Consequently, there has been a slight decline in capital spending as a percentage of GDP. No speedy joy to be expected here.



– The general pattern described so far is entirely compatible with increased monopoly power for US corporations. Put this way, if they had materially more monopoly power, we would expect to see exactly what we do see: higher profit margins; increased reluctance to expand capacity; slight reductions in GDP growth and productivity; pressure on wages, unions, and labor negotiations; and fewer new entrants into the corporate world and a declining number of increasingly large corporations. And because these factors a ect the US more than other developed countries, US margins should be higher than theirs. It is a global system and we out-brand them for one thing.



– The single largest input to higher margins, though, is likely to be the existence of much lower real interest rates since 1997 combined with higher leverage. Pre-1997 real rates averaged 200 bps higher than now and leverage was 25% lower. At the old average rate and leverage, profit margins on the S&P 500 would drop back 80% of the way to their previous much lower pre-1997 average, leaving them a mere 6% higher. (Turning up the rate dial just another 0.5% with a further modest reduction in leverage would push them to complete the round trip back to the old normal.)



What I found most interesting about the above observations is that they weren’t the ramblings of a political stooge trying to get elected for something, but rather the sincere conclusions of an investment manager trying to figure out why profit margins aren’t reverting to the mean. In doing so, he provided us with some very valuable nuggets about the underlying sickness of the U.S. economy, and why elevated corporate profits is a sign of economic weakness, not strength.


I actually wrote about this exact topic all the way back in 2012 in the piece, The Stock Market: Food Stamps for the 1%. Here’s some of what I observed at the time:





More than any other group, the 1% has been convinced that the stock market represents some sort of leading indicator of wealth and prosperity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Sure, the stock market can function as such an indicator.  It is such an indicator when the rising stock market reflects a dynamic, capitalist economy where new industries and companies are rising to the top and improving standards of living for the populace.  It represents the opposite indicator when it merely reflects the ownership interests of the oligarchs in a crony-capitalist, fascist economy that is picking away at the dying carcass of what little economic freedom still remains.  This is what a rising stock market actually represents today.  When people look at it they should understand it is merely a measure of the oligarchs getting wealthier and more powerful and you becoming more of a debt slave.  It represents their interests in multinational corporations with record profit margins because they refuse to pay their employees a living wage. 



A rising stock market today is actually a leading indicator of the destruction of the middle class, cultural destitution and a society in collapse.



The stock market is like slop in a pigpen.  It is a key instrument used to keep the 1% from getting antsy.  Unlike the middle class (a group that isn’t falling for any of the tricks), many of the 1% work on Wall Street or related industries and own stocks.  Many of the people in the 1% are at least wealthy and connected enough to still cause serious problems for the oligarchs.  They must be kept quiet as the coup that started in 2008 is brought to fruition.  Then they will be left high and dry like everyone else.  This is the role that the stock market is playing at the moment.



So as the 1% sits around analyzing a casino, the poor collect food stamps and the middle class dies.  Many in the 1% look upon the poor on food stamps with disdain, yet little do they realize they are on food stamps as well.  It’s called the stock market.



Moving back to Grantham, he goes on to write the following:





Income inequality that may be helping to keep growth and rates lower will, unfortunately, in my opinion, also take decades to move materially unless we have a very unexpected near revolution in politics.



Here’s where I disagree with his forecast. The revolution in politics he accurately thinks it will take to change things is very much here, and will become far more noticeable in the years to come. I think Grantham is looking at Trump “populism” and concluding that his policies are largely very corporate profit margin friendly. I agree with this assessment, which is why I see Trump as a fake populist. That said, there’s another ascendant populist movement happening on the other side of the ideological spectrum, and I expect it to take hold as the preeminent U.S. political force going forward.


The likely catalyst for this alternative populist vision to take hold will be a failure of Trumpisms to help average Americans improve their everyday lives. Although progressive populism is still somewhat nascent, it is quite popular amongst the youth, and will likely become increasingly so as issues of student debt and healthcare costs begin to dominate the conversation far more than they do today. The Bernie Sanders movement was merely a tremor in a much larger earthquake likely to sweep across the land in the years ahead.


This sort of movement is precisely the sort which will cause the type of “revolution in politics” Mr. Grantham considers unexpected. Not only do I expect it, I think it might be much closer to affecting policy than he thinks (I think 2020-2030 could be dominated by this sort of politics).


Moving along to the title of this post, disillusionment and despair are even father along the spectrum in parts of Europe than in the U.S., which can be evidenced by the following excerpts from Quartz:





Around 580,000 respondents in 35 countries were asked the question: Would you actively participate in large-scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months? More than half of 18- to 34-year-olds said yes.



The question was part of a European Union-sponsored survey, titled “Generation What?” The report went on to focus on respondents from 13 countries to better understand what young people are optimistic and frustrated about in Europe. Among these spotlighted countries, young people in Greece were particularly interested in joining a large-scale uprising against their government, with 67% answering yes to the question. Respondents in Greece were also more likely to believe politicians were corrupt and to have negative perceptions of the country’s financial sector.






While some observers are hoping that the defeat of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the expected loss of Le Pen in France will herald the beginning of the end for populist momentum in the Western world, I have bad news for you. Not only will populism stay ascendant, we are merely in the very early stages of this ongoing political earthquake. I do not expect this trend to go away until the economic future for average citizens (especially the youth) starts to improve materially.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Cheat Or Chump? - You Are Not An Investor

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,


You are not an investor. One can only be an investor in functioning markets. There have been no functioning markets since at least 2008, and probably much longer. That’s when central banks started purchasing financial assets, for real, which means that is also the point when price discovery died. And without price discovery no market can function.


You are therefore not an investor. Perhaps you are a cheat, perhaps you are a chump, but you are not an investor. If we continue to use terms like ‘investor’ and ‘markets’ for what we see today, we would need to invent new terms for what these words once meant. Because they surely are not the same thing. Even as there are plenty people who would like you to believe they are, because it serves their purposes.


Central banks have become bubble machines, and that is the only function they have left. You could perhaps get away with saying that the dot-com bubble, maybe even the US housing bubble, were not created by central banks, but you can’t do that for the everything bubble of today.


The central banks blow their bubbles in order to allow banks and other financial institutions to first of all not crumble, and second of all even make sizeable profits. They have two instruments to blow their bubbles with, which are used in tandem.


The first one is asset purchases, which props up the prices for these assets, through artificial demand. The second is (ultra-) low interest rates, which allows for more parties -that is, you and mom and pop- to buy more assets, another form of artificial demand.


The most important central bank-created bubble is in housing, if only because it facilitates bubbles in stocks and bonds. Home prices in many places in the world have grown much higher than either economic growth or homebuyers’ wages justify.


In many instances they have even caused a feeding frenzy, where people are so desperate to either have a place to live or not miss out on profits that they’ll pay any price, provided rates are low enough for them to get a loan approved.


As I said a few weeks ago in Our Economies Run on Housing Bubbles, the housing bubbles created in this way are essential in keeping our economies going, because it is through mortgages -loans in general- that money is created in these economies.


If this money creation machine would stop, so would the economies. Home prices would come down to more realistic levels, but there still wouldn’t be anyone to buy them, so they would sink further. That, too, is called price discovery. For which there is a bitter and urgent need.


The Fed is an outlier in the central bank system, in that it no longer buys up too many assets. But other central banks have duly taken over. Indeed, Tyler Durden observes today via Bank of America that BoJ and ECB have bought more assets so far in 2017 than central banks ever have before. One may wonder at what point the term ‘asset’ will lose its rightful meaning to the same extent that ‘investor’ and ‘markets’ have:





A quick, if familiar, observation to start the day courtesy of Bank of America which in the latest overnight note from Michael Hartnett notes that central banks (ECB & BoJ) have bought $1 trillion of financial assets just in the first four months of 2017, which amounts to $3.6 trillion annualized, “the largest CB buying on record.” As Hartnett notes, the “Liquidity Supernova is the best explanation why global stocks & bonds both annualizing double-digit gains YTD despite Trump, Le Pen, China, macro…”



A recent graph from Citi and Haver illustrated it this way:




Note the rise in central bank balance sheets before 2008. There’s nothing innocent about it.


As an aside, I like this variation from the Twitter account of “Rudy Havenstein”, which came with the comment:





Here is a chart of the well being of the American middle-class and poor over the same period.




The Fed tries to become even more of an outlier among central banks, or at least it seems to discuss ways of doing this. Now, I don’t know what is more stunning, the fact that they go about it the way they do, or the lack of anger and bewilderment that emanates from the press and other voices -nobody has a clue what a central bank should be doing-, but the following certainly is ‘something’:


Fed Intensifies Balance-Sheet Discussions With Market Players





Federal Reserve staff, widening their outreach to investors in anticipation of a critical turning point in monetary policy, are seeking bond fund manager feedback on how the central bank should tailor and communicate its exit from record holdings of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. Fed officials are intent on shrinking their crisis-era $4.48 trillion balance sheet in a way that isn’t disruptive and doesn’t usurp the federal funds rate as the main policy tool. To do that, they need to find the right communication and assess market expectations on the size of shrinkage, which is why conversations with fund managers have picked up recently. “All indications suggest that conversations around the balance sheet have accelerated,” said Carl Tannenbaum at Northern Trust Company. “The consideration of everything from design of the program to communication seems to have intensified.”



Most U.S. central bankers agreed that they would begin phasing out their reinvestment of maturing Treasury and MBS securities in their portfolio “later this year,” according to minutes of the March meeting. They also agreed the strategy should be “gradual and predictable,” according to the minutes. Fed staff routinely seek feedback from investors and bond dealers to get a fix on sentiment and expectations. The New York Fed confirmed the discussions and said it is part of regular market monitoring. The Fed is getting closer to disclosing its plan, and conversations have become more intense. “They are gauging what’s the extent of weak hands in the market that will dump these assets,” said Ed Al-Hussainy, a senior analyst on the Columbia Threadneedle Investment’s global rates and currency team. “They are calling all the asset managers. It is not part of the regular survey.”



The Fed-created bubbles in stocks, bonds, housing, what have you, have propped up these ‘market players’, which wouldn’t even be ‘market players’ anymore if they hadn’t. That would have made for a much saner world. These people are not ‘investors’ any more either, by the way, and they’re not the chumps either; they are the cheats, the profiteers. At your expense.


Now, with the new capital they have, courtesy of the Fed and other central banks only, certainly not their own intelligence or timing or knowledge, they get calls from Yellen and other Fed people about what the Fed can do for them this time. Yellen et al are afraid that if the Fed starts selling, the so-called ‘market players’ will too. Of course they will.


The bubble created by artificial demand cannot be allowed to burst all at once, it has to be done “gradual and predictable.” As if that is possible, as if the Fed controls the bursting of bubbles it has itself created. And Yellen is not going to call you or me, she could not care less; she’s going the call the pigs she fattened up most. The Fed is more than anything a bunch of academics, seduced exclusively by textbook theories that are shaky at best, to transfer wealth to the most sociopathic and hence seductive financial predators, at everyone else’s expense.


And that expense is humongous. At the same time that the Fed and the rest of the world’s central banks fattened their balance sheets as seen in the graph above, this is what happened to US debt vs GDP:



The Fed bubbles, intended to keep market players whole, are blown at the expense of the real economy. Imagine if all those $20 trillion and counting in central banks’ bubble blowing would have been used to prop up Main Street instead of Wall Street; everybody would have been better off except for the ‘investors’ who are not even real investors.


The problem is, the Fed has no control over its own bubbles. It may or may not devise ways to ‘deflate’ its balance sheet, but the bubbles that balance sheet gave birth to cannot be deflated in the same way. If the Fed did have ‘bubble control’, it would have chosen to keep both the stock markets (S&P) and housing prices at a much lower level, with only a gradual increase. That would have given the impression that things were still doing sort of fine, without adding the risk -make that certainty- that the whole shebang would blow up. But once’s the genie’s out of the bubble…


The academics must have missed that part. In the end the Fed works for banks and affiliated ‘industries’, not for people. Even -or especially- those people that like to think of themselves as ‘investors’. Today, in the process, America’s central bank is actively destroying American people. And while the Fed’s operatives may know this or not, the people certainly don’t. They think they’re making fat profits in either stocks or housing. And they are the lucky ones; most Americans are simply drowning.


A great representation of all that’s wrong in this comes courtesy of this Lance Roberts graph. A chilling illustration of the price you pay for setting S&P records.



These days, every rising asset price, every single bubble, comes at the expense of enormous increases in debt. And there are still people who wish to claim that this is not a bubble. That it is OK to get into deep debt to purchase a home, or stocks, with leverage: can’t miss out on those rates! And sure, that is still true in theory; all you have to do is get out in time. If only the Fed can get out in time, if only you can get out in time.


‘Getting out in time’ is bubble territory by definition. It’s not investing. Investing is buying an interest in something that you expect to do well, something that you think may be successful in benefiting society in such a way that people will want to own part of it. As I write down these words, I can’t help thinking of ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’, simply because it is so obvious but already feels so outdated.


I’m thinking also of Uber and Airbnb and Tesla and so many other ‘innovative’ ideas. All seemingly thriving but only because there’s so much excess cash sloshing around courtesy of Bernanke and Yellen and Draghi, looking for a next bubble to ‘invest’ in. Ideas that apparently have no trouble raising another $1 billion or $10 billion ‘investment’, in the same way that the Tulip Bubble had no such trouble, or the South Sea or Dot.Com ones.


Good luck with all that, but you’ve been warned, you’re hereby on notice. The odds that you’ll be able to ‘get out in time’ are vanishingly small. And even if you do, most others just like you won’t. And neither will the Fed academics. They have the most so-called ‘money’ at their disposal, and the least sense of what to do with it. But they have their advisers in the private banking industry to tell them all about where to put it: in one bubble or another; anywhere but the real economy.


Have I mentioned yet that all these start-ups and other bubbles are being launched into a rapidly shinking economy? Or you don’t think it is shrinking? Look, there would be no need for the Fed to blow bubbles if the economy were doing fine. And if so, they wouldn’t. Even academics have an innate sense for risk overdose.


C’mon, you’re not an investor. And perhaps you won’t even end up a loser, though the odds on that are slim, but one thing’s for sure. You are a character in an epic poem about losers.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Gold Surges, USDJPY, Yields Slide As Markets Finally Respond To Latest Set Of Economic, Geopolitical Shocks

With markets shut on Good Friday, even as the one-two knockout punch of the worst monthly core CPI print in 7 years hit...



... coupled with a miss in March retail sales, which suffered their biggest two month drop in 2 years...




... on Sunday night traders were desperate to catch up, or rather down to, the USDJPY which was the only instrument that traded through Friday"s data dump, and which at last check was trading at 108.34, nearly 100 pips below the Friday open, sliding further in early Japanese trading as the last holdouts on the reflation trade capitulate in panic, further pressured by fears over the rapidly deterioating situation in North Korea.



As one would expect, a surge in the yen means continued weakness in the dollar, and sure enough on Sunday night, Donald Trump"s recent bid for a weaker greenback has been the market"s command.



Predictably, and contrary to virtually every sellside analyst"s prediction for ongoing levitation in interest rates, US TSY yields have tumbled across the curve, with 5-year yields down as much as 5bps at 1.72%, lowest since Nov. 18, while the benchmark 10-year yield has slide 4bps to 2.20%, also the lowest since the election.



Perhaps the one asset class where the reflation revulsion has not been observed yet is S&P futures, as the E-mini stubbornly holds out to selling pressure and is barely lower on the session following Thursday"s sharp drop.



However, while equity markets may be ignoring the moves in FX and rates, gold is hardly waiting, and on Sunday night evening was trading above $1,290/oz, the highest price since the Trump electiomn... 



... and poised for a key double resistance breakout.



While the spike in gold is hardly a surprise in light of last week"s economic data and this weekend"s North Korean events, with spot not trading there was little opportunity for traders to take advantage of what many expected would be a sharp jump in the yellow metal. Except... that"s not quite true: as we noted on Friday, while spot may have be closed, physical vendors such as Ampex were happy to sell gold, and even better, at Thursday"s depressed price.



Finally, before we forget, there was another asset class that was surging overnight: the Turkish lire, which has been on fire ever since Erdogan won the popular mandate to become dictator, and which just as Barclays predicted, would lead to a spike in the Turkish currency... if only for a the very near future.


Tuesday, April 11, 2017

So Many Triggers

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,


It’s not a story that’s likely to appear on the evening news, but it certainly should.


Deutsche Bank has announced that it will create more shares, selling them at a 35% discount. Existing shareholders have not been pleased and, in the first four days since the offer was announced, the value of existing shares dropped by 13% as shareholders began dumping them.


So why on earth would Germany’s foremost bank do something so rash? Well, in recent years, the bank has been involved in many arbitrations, litigations, and regulatory proceedings as a result of fraudulent activities, including the manipulation of markets. Having been found guilty, they presently owe $7.2 billion to the US Department of Justice and are now facing an additional $10 billion litigation bill. Unfortunately, the bank is already broke and, should Deutsche actually be able to sell the new shares, the $8.6 billion they hope to receive will still not save them from bankruptcy.


Business has also not been so good. They’ve lost nearly $2 billion in the last two years, instituted a hiring freeze, cut bonuses by 80%, and are facing a $2.5 million civil penalty to pay to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for failure to report transactions and, not surprisingly, have been downgraded.


The German government has stated that they will not bail out Deutsche and, indeed, under the EU agreement, they cannot do so. It’s safe to say that Germany’s largest bank will soon go the way of the dodo.


For those who don’t live in Europe, this may not seem all that significant. However, Deutsche is the bank that funds the euro system, which they can now no longer do. Further, Deutsche is ten times larger than Lehman Brothers, an American bank that famously went down in 2008, heralding in that year’s economic crash. (Ninety percent of Deutsche’s revenue has been from derivative trading, which is what brought down Lehman.)


Upon the collapse of Deutsche Bank, four major US banks would be expected to become insolvent in a matter of days. The ripples would then continue to spread outward into the economic system as a whole.



Now for the Bad News


For many years, I’ve made repeated reference to the fact that the Western powers have been headed south economically, repeatedly relying on strategies that would provide short-term gain but would ultimately create long-term pain. They’ve been remarkably consistent and steadfast in this trend and, at this point, Deutsche is merely the latest trigger that may bring down the system. The other potential triggers are as serious as they are diverse.



  • Recently, foreign governments have been selling US Treasuries back into the US market at the fastest rate in history (indicating their belief in a future devaluation of the dollar).




  • The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was intended to legally end the possibility of quantitative easing. It did, however legalise the bail-in, authorizing banks to confiscate (steal) deposits. In other countries where a bail-in has been introduced, governments additionally seized pension funds, retirements, etc., often paying for them either with stocks in a failing bank or a bond, then defaulting on the bond.




  • The stock market is in a larger bubble than in 2008 and is overdue for a crash.




  • Bonds are in their largest bubble in history and are also overdue for a crash.




  • Derivatives, which triggered the last major crash, are now at a higher level than in 2007, indicating yet another overdue trigger.




  • Much of the world is moving away from the petrodollar, which is significantly responsible for the continued hegemony of the US dollar internationally. Many countries now routinely effect payment for fuel in other currencies.




  • Russia has recently announced the creation of its own SWIFT system (as did China not long ago), making it possible for them to effect international payments without the need to go through SWIFT in Brussels, which is largely controlled by the US.




  • On 15th March, the US hit its debt ceiling and can no longer legally continue to borrow money. It’s estimated that the money remaining in the Treasury will be exhausted on 1st June. After that point, if major money transfusions do not take place, the US government ceases to fund itself, its many agencies, and its entitlements. (There apparently is no plan in place that could provide sufficient funding.)



These are just a few select high points, and there are quite a few other triggers out there, any of which, if pulled, would serve to collapse the economy very quickly. And the list keeps growing.


The question is not “if” but “when.” In the end, it will matter little which trigger it will be, as, like a string of firecrackers, when one explodes, a chain reaction is set off. Therefore, anyone who is dependent in a significant way upon the government, financial institutions, and/or markets of any of the major Western powers is likely to understandably feel like the fellow in the photo above.


Are There Any Good News?


There may be, but only for those who are able to extricate themselves from the systems in the previous paragraph.


Those who remove their money from banks (both deposits and safe deposit boxes) may stand a better chance of not losing it.


Those who have a pension can expect to lose the income, but those who have an IRA or similar fund can transfer it into a gold IRA in a foreign country that’s less exposed to the Western powers.


Those who own stocks and bonds can choose to liquidate them and invest the proceeds in real estate and precious metals in a country that’s less likely to be affected.


Those who live in an affected country can expect to be facing, at best, civil unrest following a crash and, possibly, riots or even revolutionary activities. But those who secure alternate legal residency and/or a physical address abroad may be able to step away from the fray before it impacts them directly.


At this point, the writing is most vividly on the wall. The degree to which the individual is spared the effects of the coming debacle will depend directly upon the degree to which he has removed himself from the system beforehand.


*  *  *


The truth is, the world’s financial systems are sick and dying. For years, governments and central bankers have kept these unstable institutions alive with little more than economic witchcraft. Now they’re quickly running out of spells… We are now on the cusp of an unparalleled global economic meltdown. This looming disaster will be far worse than the 2008 financial crisis. Many people will lose everything. The good news is you can take concrete steps to “opt out” of the chaos. New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team put together this urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

Monday, April 10, 2017

"Think 1999": Morgan Stanley Sees Huge 30% Surge In Stocks "Investors Cannot Afford To Miss"

With Morgan Stanley"s Adam Parker having left the investment bank to continue his career at Eminence Capital, it was up to his replacement, Michael Wilson to come up with the Initiation of coverage report for the "Classic Late Cycle." So, in keeping a stiff upper lip, and breaking away from the gloom that appears to have recently gripped his colleagues over at Goldman Sachs, Wilson had no choice but to keep a stiff upper lip and keep the Punch Bowl full (to paraphrase Bill Dudley"s famous March 30 speech).


So, projecting a remarkable dose of optimism at a time when dramatic changes are in store for not only the Fed"s balance sheet but the global credit impulse which is now negative, Wilson, who until recently was Morgan Stanley"s Chief Investment Officer of Wealth Management, writes that "although optimism is a late cycle phenomenon, history tells us the best returns often come at the end. It has taken eight long years to get here, but Wall and Main Street are finally starting to feel a bit better about the future."


What alse comes at the end is the crash, and those tend to make both Wall and Main Street feel a bit worse about not only the future but also the present.


In any case, the basis for MS" optimism is the economic recovery - which alas is entirely missing in the hard data, which tumbled after the NFP print to the lowest level in a year - and the Trump reflation euphoria - which the bank may have missed faded about a month ago and has been rapidly contracting to pre-election levels - and uses that to extrapolate a move as high as 3,000 in the S&P, or a 30% blow off top. 


Or, as Wilson puts it, "the end of the cycle is often the best. Think 1999 or 2006-07. In a low-return world, investors cannot afford to miss it." And while "not missing it", investors will preferably buy stocks using a Morgan Stanley broker,right?


And while we commiserate with Wilson for putting it all on the line in his first report, and timestamping his wildly bullish call in a report that will be passed around for years to come, especially if this is the top-tick, here is the summary of his outlook just to help with the .





The cyclical upturn that began a year ago has less to do with President Trump and more to do with the global business cycle that bottomed in 1Q2016. Trump simply “turbocharged” the cycle and stoked animal spirits on Wall and Main Street, with tangible effects on the real economy and markets. The title of our year-ahead outlook as CIO for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management on January 1st (see excerpt at end) was “Are You Ready for Euphoria?”– based on Sir John Templeton’s four stages of the investment cycle: "Bull markets are born in pessimism, grow in skepticism, mature in optimism and die in euphoria."



What follows next may be one of the most memorable, in retrospect lines, ever written in a research report:





The end of the cycle is often the best. Think 1999 or 2006-07. In a low-return world, investors cannot afford to miss it.



So... buy stocks just at the peak of the bubble, as was the case in both 1999 and 2007, and pray for the best? Don"t worry, though, Morgan Stanley will tell you just when to sell, before it all crashes.  


Think 2000 and 2008.


The humor continues:





Equity valuation remains undemanding in a low interest rate world. Equity risk premiums (ERPs) have been exceptionally elevated in the post-crisis era of lower growth and inflation, but we may be leaving that era, which means ERPs can and should normalize. Our 12-month base case S&P 500 target is 2700.



Secular Stagnation may be over, further supporting our expectation for falling equity risk premiums. Productivity may have bottomed, fueled by the end of trends that caused the slower growth in the first place: consumer overindebtedness (housing), the oil bubble"s tax on consumers, war on terror, demographics, and bad policy (regulation, lack of fiscal/monetary coordination).



Exceptionally loose financial conditions encourage the shift toward investor euphoria. Meanwhile, our proprietary institutional and retail data suggest US equity positioning is not extreme, and market technicals are in very good shape.



To all investor who can read that with a straight face, congratulations. And perhaps just to lend credibility to his forecast, here is the matrix of Wilson"s recommendations, which sees a worst case of 2,100 in the S&P, a base case of 2,700, or over 300 points higher by EOD, and a blow off top forecast of not less then 3,000 or 30% higher from current levels.



And just to cement his "credibility", Wilson shows another chart demonstrating he is totally proficient with goalseeking in Excel sensitivity tables:



MS then narrows down its preferences to the following sectors:





Our sector/style preferences reflect our pro-risk, late-cycle thesis. Financials, Industrials, Energy, and Technology are all overweight. We are underweight Real Estate, Telecom, and Staples. We are neutral Health Care, Materials, Consumer Discretionary, and Utilities. We have a preference for small/mid caps.



An appropriate trade idea here would be to do the opposite of what MS recommends.


Perhaps most importantly, here is what Wilson believes are the risks to his call:





Risks:


  1. We are late cycle and the Fed is further along than appreciated. This tightening cycle began in 2014 with the tapering of QE, which means there may be less headroom for actual rate hikes this cycle than assumed;

  2. Commercial Real Estate and Autos are canaries in the coal mine that could spill over into broader credit markets;

  3. Oil prices fall further and/or take longer than expected to recover—the Energy sector is the single largest incremental driver of S&P 500 earnings growth this year;

  4. ECB tapering is not expected but it could happen this summer when political risks diminish in Europe.


As an amusing aside, as part of his "initiating coverage" report, Wilson shares a brief comment "on what we endeavor to provide as Morgan Stanley"s US Equity Strategist."





First, the role of US Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley has quite a storied history. As a 27-year veteran of the firm, no one has more respect for that history or the position itself. We will do our best to live up to it. Second, our philosophy about equity markets is fairly simple – get the rate of change on earnings growth right; pay attention to valuation when it matters but don’t obsess over it; appreciate the importance of sentiment and positioning and always respect what the market is telling us. In short, trust one’s fundamental work, but verify it with the market"s signals. Third, we only exist to serve you, our client. To that end, I hope that my dual role of US Equity Strategist and Chief Investment Officer, embedded in a best-in-class global Research Department and informed by a leading institutional equity and wealth management business, will provide the strategy team – and our clients - with unique and profitable insights.



Unique profitable insights like calling an up to 30% spike at a time when the market is currently trading at 20x forward operating earnings according to Goldman...



... a number which would rise to 25x under Morgan Stanley"s bullish scenario.Clearly when Wilson  says "pay attention to valuation when it matters but don’t obsess over it" it is more focused on the latter.


Finally, while investors are welcome to trade like it is 1999, don"t forget what happened just one year later...

Friday, April 7, 2017

US Stock Funds Suffer Biggest Outflow Since 2015 As Bond Inflows Soar

According to Bank of America"s Michael Hartnett, citing EPFR data, in the latest week through April 5, there were $7.4BN in outflows from equities, the largest in 40 weeks. This consisted of $3.6bn in ETF outflows - largest in 40 weeks & first outflows YTD vs. $3.8bn mutual fund outflows.



By size & style: 3rd straight week of outflows from US value funds ($1.7bn), largest outflows from US growth in 10 weeks ($2.0bn); $0.9bn outflows from US small caps & chunky $10.3bn outflows from US large caps (largest in 82 weeks)


By sector: inflows to tech ($0.8bn, 5 straight weeks), materials ($0.2bn), utilities ($0.3bn), real estate ($0.2bn), infrastructure ($0.1bn); outflows from energy ($0.6bn, largest in 29 weeks),
financials ($0.3bn), consumer ($0.2bn), healthcare ($0.1bn)



At the same time, bonds recorded $12.4 BN of inflows, the highest in 8 weeks, with Treasuries posting largest inflows in 10 weeks as the "great reflationary rotation" crumbled once again. Curiously, this took place prior to the FOMC Minutes warning that stock prices are "too high."


By geography, the focus was entirely on the U.S., where stocks saw the largest outflow since 2015, or in 82 weeks, as $14.5 billion was redeemed. This was offset by Europe which had its second straight week of inflows ($900m); Japan drew $300MM while $2.4BN entered Emerging Markets.


An amusing chart shows that while tech funds attracted $800m of inflows, thee has been a surge of inflows into "robot funds."



A separate analysis from Lipper showed largely the same, as investors yanked the most money from U.S.-based equity funds since December during the latest week, on fears stocks may be overpriced given the many roadblocks in implementing U.S. President Donald Trump"s economic policies, according to Reuters.


Lipper adds that nearly $12 billion drained from the stock funds in the seven days through April 5, including $7 billion SPDR S&P 500 ETF, a fund actively traded by investors ranging from institutional investors making speculative bets to retail buyers. Retail investors pulled back for another week, as stock mutual funds continued a streak of net outflows that has lasted the better part of the last two years. The outflow totaled $7.4 billion during the week. Meanwhile, U.S.-based funds invested in stocks abroad took in $1.1 billion during the week.


"There"s a whole lot of uncertainty right now, which is never good for the equity markets," said Pat Keon, senior research analyst for Thomson Reuters Lipper. Keon said the United States" response to conflict in Syria and North Korea has intensified jitters over policy even though market returns have been strong.


Matthew Bartolini, head of SPDR Americas Research at State Street Global Advisors, said outflows likely include both long-term investors who are trimming their winning bets and shorter-term investors shifting to other markets, something suggested by Jeff Gundlach in his latest webcast.


Investors" worries also included March U.S. auto sales data, which this week came in far below expectations.


Finally, while active investors continue to suffer, passive vehicles such as ETFs are unable to hold the inflows: As Bloomberg"s Eric Balchunas calculates, in the first quarter Vanguard alone took in $121 billion, amounting to an unprecedented $2BN per day, and was 46% better than any other Q1, Should the inflows into ETFs continue, Vanguard is on pace to rake in a record $480Bn for the year.


Thursday, April 6, 2017

What Happens When The Fed Warns The Market Is Overvalued

While investors hang on every dovish word bluffed from a venerable Fed speaker"s mouth, the cognitive dissonance when something negative is uttered is stunning. Since Greenspan"s "irrational exuberance" moment, asset-gatherers and commission-takers have advised ignoring Fedspeak on stocks... historically, that was a mistake for investors.



Having shocked a soaring market yesterday with the Minutes stating:





"Broad U.S. equity price indexes increased over the intermeeting period, and some measures of valuations, such as price-to-earnings ratios, rose further above historical norms. ... Some participants viewed equity prices as quite high relative to standard valuation measures."



Of course, business media was quick to assert this is nothing to worry about, however, as CNBC"s Mike Santoli reports, traders shouldn"t be so quick to dismiss these comments from Fed officials.


History shows when worries about valuation appear in these official minutes, stocks often struggle in the following year.


We found six mentions of an overvalued stock market in the minutes by searching the Fed"s website for the word "valuation" going back to 1996. According to Kensho, here"s the performance of the major market averages one year after the meeting when such a mention took place.



Here are the specific mentions of high "valuation" in the minutes, according to the Fed"s website, along with the S&P 500"s subsequent return from the meeting when that mention was made.





Meeting: April 28-29 — 2015 S&P 500 return 1-year later: -1.97%



"However, some indicators suggested that valuations remained stretched for some asset classes. An estimate of the expected real return on equities moved down, reflecting an increase in stock prices and downward revisions to forecasts of corporate earnings, and corporate bond spreads declined somewhat."



Sept. 16-17, 2014 — S&P 500 return 1-year later: -0.57%



"Some financial developments that could undermine financial stability over time were noted, including a deterioration in leveraged lending standards, stretched stock market valuations, and compressed risk spreads."



Jan. 27-28, 2004 — S&P 500 return 1-year later: +3.8%



"A number of members commented that expectations of sustained policy accommodation appeared to have contributed to valuations in financial markets that left little room for downside risks, and the change in wording might prompt those markets to adjust more appropriately to changing economic circumstances in the future."



Dec. 11, 2001 — S&P 500 return 1-year later: -20.39%



"Among those risks, members cited the apparently reduced prospects for additional fiscal stimulus legislation, the vulnerability of current stock market valuations should forecasts of a robust rebound in earnings fail to materialize, the possibility of further terrorist incidents, and especially the potentially adverse effect on consumer confidence and spending of additional deterioration in labor market conditions."



March 21, 2000 — S&P 500 return 1-year later: -24.88%



"The divergence, at least until recently, in the stock market between the valuations of high-tech firms and those of more traditional, established firms was inducing a redirection of investment funds to business activities that were perceived to be more productive. While the associated capital investments undoubtedly had contributed to the acceleration in productivity, some members expressed concern that the historically elevated valuations of many high-tech stocks were subject to a sizable market adjustment at some point. That risk was underscored by the increased volatility of the stock market."



Dec. 17, 1996 — S&P 500 return 1-year later: 32.99%



"The rise over recent years had been extraordinary and had brought market valuations to fairly high levels relative to earnings and dividends. In these circumstances, the members recognized the need to monitor with special care price movements in the stock market and asset markets more generally for their implications for consumer and other spending."



Of course, it"s different this time though and markets can only go up... because Trump tax reform... stimulus... earnings... right?

FOMC Admits The Stock Market Is A Bubble, Along With Many Other Asset Classes

The much anticipated March FOMC minutes were released today, and the minutes concluded exactly what I predicted in my last post titled "Is the Fed Trying to stop a "Market" that has gotten ahead of itself". In it I said that the only reason they were raising rates unexpectedly is because they are trying to slow the bubble from getting any bigger. The minutes confirmed that the February "out of nowhere talk" of a rate hike, which led to a March rate hike, was all due to stocks and many other assets classes being a bubble.  FOMC officials are now openly admitting that their disastrous policies have created the largest asset bubbles in history, which has never been done before. On multiple occasions in years prior, many Fed officials, including former chair Greenspan, have openly said that it was very hard to spot asset bubbles in advance. Now they are openly saying that they are seeing bubbles. Many current Fed officials share that same stupid viewpoint as Greenspan, including Kashkari, Fisher and Powell. Powell, just this past January at a conference in Chicago, said "low rates can lead to excessive leverage and broadly unsustainable asset prices - things that we watch carefully for and do not observe at this point." So it was surprising to see the following In today"s minutes from the March meeting:


In their discussion of recent developments in financial markets, participants noted that financial conditions remained accommodative despite the rise in longer-term interest rates in recent months and continued to support the expansion of economic activity. Many participants discussed the implications of the rise in equity prices over the past few months, with several of them citing it as contributing to an easing of financial conditions. A few participants attributed the recent equity price appreciation to expectations for corporate tax cuts or to increased risk tolerance among investors rather than to expectations of stronger economic growth. Some participants viewed equity prices as quite high relative to standard valuation measures. It was observed that prices of other risk assets, such as emerging market stocks, high-yield corporate bonds, and commercial real estate, had also risen significantly in recent months. In contrast, prices of farmland reportedly had edged lower, in part because low commodity prices continued to weigh on farm income. Still, farmland valuations were said to remain quite high as gauged by standard benchmarks such as rent-to-price ratios.



And also this major point:


 In addition, a number of participants remarked that recent and prospective changes in financial conditions posed upside risks to their economic projections, to the extent that financial developments provided greater stimulus to spending than currently anticipated, as well as downside risks to their economic projections if, for example, financial markets were to experience a significant correction. Participants also mentioned potential developments abroad that could have adverse implications for the U.S. economy.



Wait what? Didn"t Yellen herself say in June of 2016 that the Fed doesn"t target stock prices. Yes she did. That"s what makes this whole circus truly funny. Their polices of QE and years of ZIRP were to supposedly help create growth, and get the economy back on track. It was the "tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists" who said from the beginning, that the experiment that the fed was embarking on would not help the economy, but rather help the stock market and Wall Street. Even four former fed officials, Richard Fischer, Thomas Hoenig, Charles Plosser, and Jeremy Stein shared the same view as these evil conspiracy theorists. Plosser put quite well in an interview for the documentary "Money For Nothing" by saying: "Stimulating the economy through monetary policy really does almost nothing to contribute to low unemployment rates or high employment in the long term. Printing money doesn"t produce goods and services, it doesn"t hire people." 


But this is not the first time the Fed has warned that stock valuations are high, but it was the first time that they admitted that they have created, as Trump said, a Huge Bubble. Sometimes it can take a while, years in this case, for the people out of touch with reality who are put into positions to fix the economy that they destroyed, to finally see reality.