Nomi Prins: Expect The Fed To Pause If Volatility Continues

Authored by Nomi Prins via The Daily Reckoning,

It’s a good thing October is at an end. It’s been a particularly lousy month for the markets. October has seen about $8 trillion in value erased from global markets.

Reasons for that sell-off range from fear over Fed rate hikes, trade wars, elections and buyback “blackout” periods during earnings.

Buyback blackouts are ending, which should provide markets some needed lift over the next month. Buybacks have been one of the primary reasons markets have risen this year.

But other areas will keep the level of volatility high into the year-end. The upcoming elections, for example, could reshape Congress. If there is a turnover from Republicans to Democrats, legislation that relates to tax policy, financial regulations and international relations could be stalled or reversed.

Externally, we’re facing global volatility factors that include increasing uncertainty over what Brexit will look like and how it will impact the European economy. The new election of a Trump-like populist figure in Brazil could have ramifications for trade in the Americas and Asia. Emerging-market countries are also seeing their currencies falter against the dollar.

Volatility is nothing new. It’s how you deal with it that matters.

In early 2016, just after the Fed first raised rates in December 2015 after eight years of zero interest rate policy, the markets took a nosedive. As a result, the Fed put the brakes on hiking rates for an entire year.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BOJ) ramped up their asset-buying programs, which provided stimulus to the financial markets.

All of that led to calmer markets. Investors believed easy money would continue. That’s why we saw the Dow Jones industrial average rise over 60% through this September from where it was in January 2016.

But now the markets have fallen out of bed.

Some economists at Deutsche Bank agree that “unless the markets regain their footing soon, the pressure for the Federal Reserve to reassess their monetary policy will continue to mount.”

The Fed has, for now, forecast another hike coming in December and more next year.

I think the Fed will hold off on a December rate hike as well. Last week, the Fed already tempered some of its “hot economy” rhetoric. It said, “wages and prices are rising in its 12 districts and overall economic activity expanded at a “modest to moderate” pace.”

Some analysts interpreted this as an open invitation for a December Fed rate hike. But there’s reason to believe the opposite.

It’s not an especially glowing statement about wages or prices rising. Plus, GDP only grew 3.5% in the third quarter compared to 4.2% in the second, a slowdown I warned would happen. And if you look behind the numbers, growth may have been even weaker than indicated. That gives the Fed another reason to slow down its tightening pace.

Current Fed leaders know that tightening too much too quickly could result in significant market drops and credit crunches.

Last Friday, not one, but two Federal Reserve officials noted that the Fed “won’t raise short-term rates without taking economic conditions into account.”

It’s worth noting, and is likely not coincidental, that they made those statements right after GDP growth came in lower for the third quarter versus the second quarter.

First, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester told CNBC that you could think of the Fed as “a hiker.” She went on to say that, “We’re going to be using what the economy is telling us, and the data that comes in, to inform our outlook and that is going to determine” the hiking path.

She stressed, and agreed with me, that “the economy is slowing and that was maybe why stocks have been volatile.” Although she doesn’t see the slowdown as a serious problem right now, she “still expects to see growth around a 2.75% annual rate in 2019.”

That’s a far cry from the 4.2% GDP growth that was reported for the second quarter of this year. And well below the 3.5% third-quarter figure that just came in.

Another Fed official, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan, told Bloomberg much the same. He noted that the Fed would not be “rigid or predetermined.”

But it’s not just Mester and Kaplan that are raising the warning flags.

The Fed’s vice chair for supervision, Randal Quarles, recently said that uncertainty calls for gradual U.S. rate hikes. Consider the term gradual. You should interpret it as an indicator that if something changes dramatically in economic growth forecasts or other geopolitical factors, the Fed could act by slowing down on rate hikes and its quantitative tightening (QT) plan.

And then we come to the Fed chairman himself.

In a recent interview with The Atlantic at an event in Washington, D.C., Fed Chair Jerome Powell seemed to back off the tightening language.

“Powell said he sees the rates as a balance between the Fed trying to avoid suffocating growth and to maintain its tools for future use,” The Atlantic reports, adding:

“He said he thinks the Fed is striking that balance now, and the positive indicators in the economy suggest it’s working. But that doesn’t mean he feels totally safe about the economy.”

You should take this synopsis as a signal that the Fed will be treading very carefully in December.

It means the Fed is watching slowing growth and market volatility carefully. Again, I expect the Fed to hold off on a December rate hike.

The next meeting is set for Dec. 18–19. That’s still almost two months away. If conditions continue to deteriorate, the Fed could well hold off on another rate hike this year.

If that is the case, it could lead to an end-of-year surge in the market and a collective sigh of relief that central banks still have the financial markets’ backs.

Across the Atlantic, the European Central Bank (ECB) left benchmark interest rates unchanged last week. It also confirmed that it would keep on with its plan to end growing its quantitative easing (QE) program by the end of 2018.

But in a statement, the ECB added language which gave it room to maneuver, or to extend its QE program just a little bit longer if it deems necessary. It said, “subject to incoming data confirming the medium-term inflation outlook, net purchases will then end.”

That signals to me that the ECB is going to watch both the stock and bond markets in Europe, as well as slowing global growth, before it truly ends its QE program. And even then, it’ll be a while before it sells off any of its massive book of assets.

This emerges at a time when European corporate bonds and government bonds in some Southern European countries are having serious problems.

Right now, with pressure mounting in Italy and worries growing about historically high debt levels, the ECB could unleash a credit crisis — especially if it stops QE in a period of market volatility.

That’s why, like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB is more likely to push off any such shift in policy into the new year. That means you should expect a potential bond market pop in Europe in December.

The bottom line is, don’t expect central banks to abandon the markets if things continue to go downhill. The game can’t go on forever. But it’s the only game they know how to play.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Rt9Qtl Tyler Durden

The Best And Worst Performing Assets In “Brutal” October

Earlier today we showed a remarkable statistic when looking at the performance of all asset classes in the first ten months of 2018: according to Deutsche Bank, as of the end of October, 89% of assets that the German lender collects data on for its annual long-term study, have had a negative total return year to date in dollar terms. This was the highest percentage on record based on data back to 1901, eclipsing the 84% hit in 1920.

Of course, the bulk of this YTD underperformance took place in the month of October. So how did various assets classes perform in the just concluded month?

Well, as Deutsche Bank’s Craig Nicol writes, in the context of the longest bull market in history and the second longest (and counting) expansion of the US economy on record, October 2018 may well end up being one of the most memorable – or unforgettable depending on your take – of the 112 months during this cycle in markets, at least for equities.

Indeed at a headline level, we saw the worst monthly performance in total return terms for the NASDAQ since November 2008, S&P 500 since September 2011, MSCI EM Equities since August 2015, STOXX 600 and Hang Seng since January 2016, and Nikkei since June 2016. That’s despite the rally into month end which at least helped to limit some of the damage.

In fact traders would be hard placed to find many assets which posted a positive total return last month: by the end of October, 34 out of the 38 assets in Deutsche Bank’s sample had delivered a negative total return in local currency terms, while 36 did so in dollar adjusted terms. And, as noted above, the performance for assets in October has also resulted in the vast majority dipping into negative returns for the full year to date too.

The obvious place to start is with equities. Of those listed above it was the Hang Seng (-10.0%) which ended the month down  double digits, with the NASDAQ (-9.2%), Nikkei (-9.1%), EM Equities (-8.7%), FTSE MIB (-8.0%), European Banks (-7.9%), Shanghai Comp (-7.7%) and S&P 500 (-6.8%) not far behind – the latter boosted by a rally into month end. At a sector level for the S&P only the defensive utilities (+2.0%) and consumer staples (+2.3%) rose. Meanwhile, its worth noting that for European markets a 2.5% decline for the euro actually helped local currency returns. On a dollar adjusted basis the STOXX 600 and DAX were actually down -7.9% and -8.9% respectively and therefore underperforming the S&P 500. The one bright spot for equities last month was in Brazil where the BOVESPA rallied +10.2% and +19.9% in local currency and dollar adjusted terms respectively following the perceived market friendly election result.

Credit markets generally held in a bit better than equities on a relative basis but returns were still by and large negative. In the US we saw HY post a -0.7% return while IG Non-Fin returned -1.6%. In Europe HY returned -1.2% however dollar adjusted returns were -3.6% while IG Non-Fin was -0.2% and -2.7% respectively. It was a similar story for underlying bond markets also. Treasuries (-0.5%) were slightly weaker which was impressive given the risk off while Bunds (+0.6%) delivered marginally positive returns however again the latter did see a return of -1.9% in dollar adjusted terms. BTPs returned -1.4% in local currency terms and -3.9% in dollar terms following another month of whipsawing yields around the budget headlines. Finally in commodity markets it was only Gold (+1.9%) which closed higher, with Copper (-5.2%) and more notably Brent (-8.8%) and WTI (-10.8%) down.

As for where that leaves us year to date, well at the end of October, of the 38 assets in the bank’s sample, 29 and 31 assets in local currency and dollar adjusted terms respectively, finished with negative total returns. That compares to 24 and 30 at the end of September.

As Deutsche Bank notes, it’s amazing to think that at this stage last year, there were only 3 assets (Bunds, Commodity Index and Russian Equities) in local currency terms with a negative total return and one asset (Commodity Index) negative in dollar adjusted terms. Of the DM equity markets now, only the NASDAQ (+6.7%)  and to a lesser extent the S&P 500 (+3.0%) are holding onto positive total returns. The STOXX 600 is now down -4.2% (and -9.7% in dollar terms), DAX -11.4% (and -16.5% in dollar terms), Hang Seng -13.7% (-14.0% in dollar terms) and Shanghai Comp -19.4% (-24.7% in dollar terms). Boosted by October’s rally, the BOVESPA is now up +14.4% for the year in contrast.

Broader EM equities have however fallen -15.5%. In bonds, Treasuries and Bunds have returned -2.3% and +1.4% respectively (the latter however down -4.4% in dollar terms) while BTPs now stand at -5.8% and -11.2% in local and dollar terms for the year. Meanwhile credit indices are -0.6% to -2.3% in Europe (but as much as -8.0% in dollar terms) and +2.1% to -4.1% in the US with HY the standout performer still over 2018. Finally commodity markets continue to be bookended by Brent (+18.5%) and Copper (-19.4%) with the broader commodity index (-1.5%) closer to flat.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qoMZU8 Tyler Durden

The Best And Worst Performing Assets In “Brutal” October

Earlier today we showed a remarkable statistic when looking at the performance of all asset classes in the first ten months of 2018: according to Deutsche Bank, as of the end of October, 89% of assets that the German lender collects data on for its annual long-term study, have had a negative total return year to date in dollar terms. This was the highest percentage on record based on data back to 1901, eclipsing the 84% hit in 1920.

Of course, the bulk of this YTD underperformance took place in the month of October. So how did various assets classes perform in the just concluded month?

Well, as Deutsche Bank’s Craig Nicol writes, in the context of the longest bull market in history and the second longest (and counting) expansion of the US economy on record, October 2018 may well end up being one of the most memorable – or unforgettable depending on your take – of the 112 months during this cycle in markets, at least for equities.

Indeed at a headline level, we saw the worst monthly performance in total return terms for the NASDAQ since November 2008, S&P 500 since September 2011, MSCI EM Equities since August 2015, STOXX 600 and Hang Seng since January 2016, and Nikkei since June 2016. That’s despite the rally into month end which at least helped to limit some of the damage.

In fact traders would be hard placed to find many assets which posted a positive total return last month: by the end of October, 34 out of the 38 assets in Deutsche Bank’s sample had delivered a negative total return in local currency terms, while 36 did so in dollar adjusted terms. And, as noted above, the performance for assets in October has also resulted in the vast majority dipping into negative returns for the full year to date too.

The obvious place to start is with equities. Of those listed above it was the Hang Seng (-10.0%) which ended the month down  double digits, with the NASDAQ (-9.2%), Nikkei (-9.1%), EM Equities (-8.7%), FTSE MIB (-8.0%), European Banks (-7.9%), Shanghai Comp (-7.7%) and S&P 500 (-6.8%) not far behind – the latter boosted by a rally into month end. At a sector level for the S&P only the defensive utilities (+2.0%) and consumer staples (+2.3%) rose. Meanwhile, its worth noting that for European markets a 2.5% decline for the euro actually helped local currency returns. On a dollar adjusted basis the STOXX 600 and DAX were actually down -7.9% and -8.9% respectively and therefore underperforming the S&P 500. The one bright spot for equities last month was in Brazil where the BOVESPA rallied +10.2% and +19.9% in local currency and dollar adjusted terms respectively following the perceived market friendly election result.

Credit markets generally held in a bit better than equities on a relative basis but returns were still by and large negative. In the US we saw HY post a -0.7% return while IG Non-Fin returned -1.6%. In Europe HY returned -1.2% however dollar adjusted returns were -3.6% while IG Non-Fin was -0.2% and -2.7% respectively. It was a similar story for underlying bond markets also. Treasuries (-0.5%) were slightly weaker which was impressive given the risk off while Bunds (+0.6%) delivered marginally positive returns however again the latter did see a return of -1.9% in dollar adjusted terms. BTPs returned -1.4% in local currency terms and -3.9% in dollar terms following another month of whipsawing yields around the budget headlines. Finally in commodity markets it was only Gold (+1.9%) which closed higher, with Copper (-5.2%) and more notably Brent (-8.8%) and WTI (-10.8%) down.

As for where that leaves us year to date, well at the end of October, of the 38 assets in the bank’s sample, 29 and 31 assets in local currency and dollar adjusted terms respectively, finished with negative total returns. That compares to 24 and 30 at the end of September.

As Deutsche Bank notes, it’s amazing to think that at this stage last year, there were only 3 assets (Bunds, Commodity Index and Russian Equities) in local currency terms with a negative total return and one asset (Commodity Index) negative in dollar adjusted terms. Of the DM equity markets now, only the NASDAQ (+6.7%)  and to a lesser extent the S&P 500 (+3.0%) are holding onto positive total returns. The STOXX 600 is now down -4.2% (and -9.7% in dollar terms), DAX -11.4% (and -16.5% in dollar terms), Hang Seng -13.7% (-14.0% in dollar terms) and Shanghai Comp -19.4% (-24.7% in dollar terms). Boosted by October’s rally, the BOVESPA is now up +14.4% for the year in contrast.

Broader EM equities have however fallen -15.5%. In bonds, Treasuries and Bunds have returned -2.3% and +1.4% respectively (the latter however down -4.4% in dollar terms) while BTPs now stand at -5.8% and -11.2% in local and dollar terms for the year. Meanwhile credit indices are -0.6% to -2.3% in Europe (but as much as -8.0% in dollar terms) and +2.1% to -4.1% in the US with HY the standout performer still over 2018. Finally commodity markets continue to be bookended by Brent (+18.5%) and Copper (-19.4%) with the broader commodity index (-1.5%) closer to flat.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qn0lAr Tyler Durden

Just-In-Time Stimulus: Fed Proposes Looser Rules For Large U.S. Banks

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

The Fed’s proposal marks one of the most significant rollbacks of bank regulations since Trump took office…

The Wall Street Journal reports Fed Proposes Looser Rules for Large U.S. Banks

The Federal Reserve announced one of the most significant rollbacks of bank rules since President Trump took office with a proposal for looser capital and liquidity requirements for large U.S. lenders.

The changes would affect large U.S. lenders including U.S. Bancorp , Capital One Financial Corp. , and more than a dozen others. The largest U.S. banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., wouldn’t see any significant rule changes, and some in the industry thought the proposal didn’t go far enough.

The draft proposal, approved by a 3-1 vote at a Wednesday meeting of the Fed’s governing board, would divide big banks into four categories based on their size and other risk factors. Regional lenders would be either entirely released from certain capital and liquidity requirements, or see those requirements reduced. They could also, in some cases, be subject to less frequent stress tests.

The proposals received a mixed reaction from banks. While some trade groups praised it, Greg Baer—president of the Bank Policy Institute, which represents large banks—said the proposal “does not do enough to tailor regulations.” He said, for instance, the plan doesn’t include changes to the Fed’s primary stress tests for big banks or to rules affecting foreign-owned banks with U.S. footprints. Fed officials said they were planning future proposal in those areas.

The plan divided the Fed, with Trump-appointed regulators and the Fed’s lone Obama-appointed official taking opposite sides. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said the proposal would cut the regulatory burden “while maintaining the most stringent requirements for firms that pose the greatest risks.”

Fed governor Lael Brainard dissented. The Obama appointee said the policy changes “weaken the buffers that are core to the resilience of our system” and raise “the risk that American taxpayers again will be on the hook.”

Less Regulation Needed

My “Just in Time Stimulus” headline was meant as sarcasm, in case anyone missed it.

Yet, I am all in favor of less regulation. This is what we need.

  1. End the Fed

  2. End fractional reserve lending

  3. End the bailouts

  4. End deposit insurance

  5. Let the free market select what is money

Failure of Regulation

All five points above are failures of regulation, not failures to regulate.

If we are to enact my plan, by all means let banks lend however the hell they want. The free market will take care of what’s needed.

If banks make poor lending choices, they will fail. And that’s a good thing.

As it sits, looser lending standards coupled with the current credit bubble, housing bubble, equity bubbles, and a junk bond bubble is not the best thing to do right now.

Lowering capital standards is downright idiotic in light of the need for point number two above.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2AGK7YT Tyler Durden

Morgan Stanley: US Market Strength Appears To Be Driven By A Monster Short Squeeze

After the furious move in the market in the past two days, numerous theories have already sprung up seeking to explain the sharp reversal in the downward risk pressure observed through most of October, with some speculating that the macro data is finally turning, that China is getting more aggressive in backstopping its capital markets, that underwater hedge funds are scrambling to load up on high beta names in a last-minute rush to catch up with the market, or that the selling pressure has simply been exhausted.

While all those may have some validity, they all try to goalseek the price action with some grand unifying narrative.

As to what is really happening, we go to Morgan Stanley’s Equity Derivatives team, which in a note released moments ago provides a startling answer: yesterday’s move was nothing but another furious short squeeze, to wit:

Worryingly the strength in US markets appears to be driven by a squeeze in the shorts, rather than a true “risk on” redeployment of capital. My colleagues in the US noting today that their basket (MSXXSHRT) outperformed meaningfully again today, the second largest one day relative move since 2016 – the largest move was Tuesday!

That’s for the US; there was some better news out of Europe where the move appears to have been more organic:

We just published an update on the short covering we are seeing in Europe and our recommendations for our baskets (MSSTHISI, MSSTARSI). In a nutshell the short covering we already saw throughout Jun-Aug, coupled with the comfortable p&l cushion, has ensured that short-covering is NOT driving European markets.

The lack of a squeeze also explains Europe’s modest bounce today:

After the October we just survived, I suppose it comes as no surprise that November kicked off with more of a whimper than a bang, as Eurostoxx50 closed up a mere 20bps. Despite this almost zero realised day, intraday gamma continues to offer staggering value (10d hi-lo realised sits ~26v, still around the Feb highs). This is in part driven by the “aimless” type trading on light volumes we see in our early morning sessions, as traders hold out to take our direction from US earnings and investor behaviour. It’s also certainly impacted by this incredibly distracting headline tennis on the potential escalation or de-escalation of trade wars.

Finally, Morgan Stanley’s quants have an interesting trade idea:

another fantastic update note from Rob & team looking at our favourite “End of QE” trade – short/long puts on MSSTWKBS Index. Ask us for a call.

  • All stocks rated BBB or worse, massive debt roll-over in next 3Y, issuance of credit expanding + quality of credit deteriorating.
  • The HF long book is unwinding, the short book can rise.
  • Theme outperformed in sell-off so great opportunity for shorts to re-engage in preparation for QE ending.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2F6lMQi Tyler Durden

Massachusetts Cop Charged With Kicking Latino Teen, Spitting on Him, Saying: ‘Welcome to the White Man’s World’

Kicking a juvenile Latino teenager in the head. Spitting on him. Telling him: “Welcome to the white man’s world.” Threatening to plant a “kilo of coke” in another Latino teen’s pocket.

Those are just a few of the more horrifying allegations made against a Massachusetts cop in a federal indictment unsealed yesterday. The accusations stem from a February 2016 incident in which two Springfield police officers allegedly used excessive force after several Latino teens allegedly stole an unmarked police car.

It all started with a pizza run, according to a civil lawsuit filed in August by one of the teens. On the night of February 26, then-Officer Stephen Vigneault drove his unmarked car to pick up some pizza for former narcotics detective Gregg Bigda. The lawsuit says Bigda had been drinking rum, and Vigneault was hoping to sober him up.

Vigneault left the car running while he was in the pizzeria, only to discover it was gone when he returned. The Washington Post reports what happened next:

The chase was on. The alleged thieves, a group of teenagers, were apparently looking for a joyride. For nearly four hours they got one, until a strip of spikes laid by police stopped the speeding TrailBlazer in its tracks. The doors flung open, and the suspected thieves jumped out, fleeing through the woods with police dogs on their heels. They made it as far as the porch of a multifamily home.

The federal indictment, filed on October 25, names both Bigda and Vigneault as defendants. While arresting one of the juveniles, identified as E.P., Bigda “willfully deprived” him of his right “to be free from unreasonable seizures, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer,” the indictment says. The result was “bodily injury” sustained by E.P. The indictment says Vigneault acted in a similar manner while arresting another juvenile, identified as D.R.

The indictment did not go into detail regarding Vigneault’s alleged use of excessive force. But the claims made against Bigda are disturbing. “During the course of the arrest,” the indictment says, Bigda “kicked juvenile suspect E.P. in the head, spat on him, and said, ‘welcome to the white man’s world.'”

Things didn’t improve after the teens were taken to the police station. According to the indictment, Bigda interrogated D.R. without his parents present and “without reading him his Miranda warnings.” Bigda allegedly threatened to “crush [D.R.’s] skull and fucking get away with it,” “fucking kill [D.R.] in the parking lot,” “stick a fucking kilo of coke in [D.R.’s] pocket and put [him] away for fucking 15 years,” and “kick [D.R.] right in the fucking face.”

Bigda also interrogated a third juvenile and allegedly threatened to “beat the fuck out of” him.

Much of the interrogations was captured on surveillance video and released later in 2016.

“I’m not hampered by the fucking truth ’cause I don’t give a fuck! People like you belong in jail. I’ll charge you with whatever,” Bigda says in the video, before threatening to plant drugs in D.R.’s pocket.

According to The Daily Beast, Bidga only received a 60-day suspension. He was able to return to work despite this being just the latest in a series of disturbing claims made against him. MassLive reports:

Bigda has a history of civilian complaints. He has been accused of assaulting a pregnant woman, saying “I hate Puerto Ricans” and pepper-spraying puppies to death.

In a statement yesterday, Springfield Police Commissioner John Barbieri said Bigda “will be suspended without pay due to the indictment.”

Vigneault, meanwhile, resigned in the months after the incident. However, in a lawsuit filed last year, Vigneault claimed he was forced to step down, even though he didn’t actually do anything wrong. Vigneault has maintained his innocence to the present day.

Still, he and Bigda were both arrested yesterday, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. In addition to the other charges, Bigda also stands accused of filing two false reports with internal affairs in an effort to cover up his actions.

The press release notes that both officers “are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” But regardless of what happens in court, the case highlights a glaring lack of accountability in the Springfield Police Department.

On its own, the video of Bigda conducting interrogations should have been enough to get him fired. The fact that he was able to return to work so soon is unacceptable. Even though the video was disturbing enough to spark a Justice Department probe, Bigda remained on the force, despite years of alleged misconduct.

Firing bad cops may be “damn near impossible,” as Reason‘s Mike Riggs explained in 2012. But that doesn’t justify Bigda’s continued employment. As the video shows, it was clear he had no business being in any sort of position of authority.

The fact that it took federal charges for him to suspended indefinitely is inexcusable.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2JvFyn9
via IFTTT

After The Rout: These Are The Top 20 Hedge Fund Long And Short Positions

Three weeks ago, just as Q3 earnings season was about to begin and ahead of a historic rout in the S&P, we showed a BofA screen of the top 20 longs and shorts held by hedge funds, which as we explained at the time is relevant because as we first discussed 5 years ago, the best performing strategy in the market has been also the simplest one: buying the most underweight stocks by large cap active funds and selling the most overweight stocks by large cap active funds has consistently generated alpha (although 2017 was the only year when this trend was bucked).

We left readers with a specific trade suggestion:

with earnings season about to start, traders may put the above data to good use as positioning risks are particularly acute during quarter-end rebalancing: the 10 most neglected stocks have outperformed the 10 most crowded stocks by an annualized spread of 85ppt on average during the first 15 days of each quarter since 2012. In other words, buying the 10 most underweight stocks and shorting the 10 most overweight remains the best source of alpha this decade.

Today, with almost two thirds of earnings reports behind us, Bank of America provides an update of not only how hedge fund portfolios have shifted in the past month, but also how this “strategy” has performed.

In short, anyone who followed our advice to short the top 10 most widely held stocks while going long the 10 most hated names would have generated a stunning 81% annualized return so far this earnings season, the highest since th 292% return in Q4 2015.

Solid returns aside for those who bet that hedge funds would once again stumble all over each other on the way to the exits as they ran away from names, mostly in the tech and growth sectors, that were priced to perfection, Bank of America also found that in its latest update of large cap fund holdings, where two-thirds of the assets are current as of end of 3Q, large cap active managers have made the biggest rotation from cyclical sectors to defensive sectors in data history since 2008 just ahead of earnings.

In particular, managers’ relative exposures to Consumer Discretionary, Industrials and Materials have fallen to more than one standard deviation below historical averages, and Discretionary (1.08x) and Industrials (0.91x) are now at record low levels of positioning.

At the same time as managers fled “sicklical” stocks they flooded into defensives, as managers’ overweight in Health Care has risen to its highest level of positioning in more than two years (1.08x to 1.13x), now more crowded than Discretionary and second only to Communication Services (1.28x). Staples positioning also rebounded from its record low level (0.68x) to a one-year high (0.72x). At the same time, utilities positioning jumped to its highest level in more than two years at 0.46x, and Real Estate is now at its record high levels of positioning at 0.44x. According to BofA, “this rotation couldn’t have been more timely, as the S&P 500 index almost saw a 10% correction in October and cyclicals/high risk stocks were hit the hardest, while the defensive/bond-proxy sectors outperformed.”

Unfortunately, this pre-emptive rotation was not enough, as stocks still overowned by active managers continued to suffer during the sell-off, as the top 25 crowded stocks underperformed the equal-weighted S&P 500 between Sept 20 and Oct 29 (peak-to-trough) by 3.5%, while the 25 least owned stocks outperformed the index by 5.3 ppt.

In other words, anyone who was long the 25 biggest hedge fund longs and short the 25 biggest shorts, generated a nearly 9% absolute return in the past month!

And, as noted above, positioning risk has been particularly acute following quarter ends, with the average annualized 15-day return spread post-quarter-end between the top vs. bottom 10 by relative weight since 2008 has been a remarkable 84ppt.

Finally, for those who missed the last boat but are hoping to profit from the increasing confusion among the “smart money”, BofA again screened for stocks with the most (Table 4) and the least (Table 5) short interest (as a % of float), where the most (~85%) short interest in stocks is from hedge funds. What the analysis found is that the most hated, or shorted, stocks are the following:

  1. Under Armour
  2. Discovery
  3. Campbell Soup
  4. Kohl’s Corporation
  5. Mattell
  6. Nordstrom
  7. Coty
  8. TripAdvisor
  9. Mircochip Technology
  10. Macy’s

Meanwhile, the least shorted names are, not surprisingly, the blue chips:

  1. JPMorgan
  2. Wells Fargo
  3. Johnson & Johnson
  4. UnitedHealth Group
  5. Microsoft
  6. PNC Financial
  7. Medtronic
  8. Berkshire Hathaway
  9. Coca-Cola
  10. Alphabet

The full list is below:

And to complete the hedge fund exposure picture, BofA also performed a screen of 1) stocks which are most overweight by hedge funds based on their net relative weight in the stocks vs. its weight in the S&P 500 and 2) a screen of stocks which have the largest net short positioning by hedge funds relative to the stocks’ weight in the S&P 500.

According to BofA, these are the 10 stocks where hedge funds have the most net relative exposure:

  1. Twenty-First Century Fox Class A
  2. IQVIA Holdings
  3. Incyte
  4. Arconic
  5. TransDigm
  6. NRG Energy
  7. Twenty-First Century Fox Class B
  8. Alliance Data Systems
  9. United Continental Holdings
  10. Xerox

While the 10 most net short names relative to net exposure are the following 10 companies:

  1. Mattell
  2. Hormel Foods
  3. Microchip Technology
  4. Albermarle
  5. Coty
  6. Discovery
  7. Nordstrom
  8. Under Armor
  9. Omnicom
  10. Iron Mountain

And summarized:

So when in doubt what trades to put on (and the latest Gartman reco is not available), the answer is simple:

Over the last several years, buying the most underweight stocks by large cap active funds and selling the most overweight stocks by large cap active funds has consistently generated alpha.

In other words, just keep doing the opposite of what the smart money has done: as the data repeatedly shows, in a world that is allegedly devoid of alpha, taking the other side of the “smart money” crowd has been the winning trade for 7 of the past 8 years.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2RssYaK Tyler Durden

October Was A Wake Up Call – Follow The ETF Flows

Via DataTrekResearch.com,

How much are exchange traded funds to blame for October’s US equity market volatility, and what can capital flows here tell us about current investment trends? As the old supermarket tabloid tagline went, “Enquiring minds want to know…”

Let’s start with a little myth-busting: contrary to popular opinion, ETFs do not own sizable chunks of headline names like the FAANG stocks. Total ETF ownership of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google averages just 6.1% of shares outstanding according to data from industry source www.xtf.com. While ETFs are only a portion of total “passive” invested capital, their specific impact on both stock valuations and intraday volatility is arithmetically small.

Now, if you want to see where ETFs make more of a difference to US stock prices, dig past the top 1,000 names by market cap and look at the Russell 2000 or the S&P 600. The largest name in the Russell (teen retailer Five Below) is 12.3% owned by ETFs. The largest weighting in the 600 (defense/commercial IT company CACI Intl) is 17.8% owned by ETFs. Now we’re talking about real money…

That’s a good segue to a discussion of October ETF money flows, because US equity small cap ETFs saw sizable redemptions this month relative to large caps. The numbers:

  • For October-to-date, ETF investors sold down a net $1.2 billion of small cap US equity products. Over the same period, they actually added $1.1 billion of capital to US large cap ETFs.
  • This reversed the Q1 – Q3 trend of outsized inflows into US small cap ETFs, which averaged +$2.5 billion/month. Those inflows were, until this month, basically equal to the +$2.7 billion/month for US large caps but obviously on a much smaller base of market cap.

Key takeaway: if you’ve wondered why US small caps rolled over so hard in October, look no further than ETF money flows. We noted yesterday that US small caps have underperformed the S&P 500 by a 2-standard deviation differential in the last 90 days. We like them here, but their near term action seems to be in the hands of ETF asset allocators.

Moving on quickly to 5 other important points on ETF money flows:

#1. ETF investors turned positive on US stocks in the last week. Total US equity money flows are actually positive month-to-date by $814 million, but only because of +$7.3 billion of inflows in just the last week. That means prior to the last 5 days, ETF investors were large net sellers. Still… They are back, at least for now.

#2. ETF investor bias in US equities is now solidly in the “Value” camp.Month-to-date, Value-style ETFs have received $2.0 billion in fresh capital, as compared to $756 million of outflows for Growth funds. Over half ($1.3 billion) of that Value money came in just the last 5 days.

#3. October’s volatility pushed ETF investors offshore and into developed economy equities. Month-to-date inflows here total +$3.3 billion, well above the $814 million for US stocks noted above. This slowed in the last week, however.

#4. Japanese equities saw the largest chunk of these non-US flows in October, with $2.3 billion of fresh capital. This reversed a trend towards redemptions of Japanese equities in the first three quarters of 2018.

#5. The single weirdest thing about this month’s ETF money flows: fixed income products saw redemptions, even in a macro “risk off” environment.A few data points here:

  • Month-to-date bond fund outflows total -$2.5 billion, as compared to +$7.6 billion/month of inflows for Q1 – Q3.
  • Corporate debt ETFs took the hit, seeing $5.0 billion in redemptions this month-to-date.
  • That capital went right into sovereign debt funds, with $4.4 billion of inflows MTD.
  • ETF investors also reduced duration risk in October, adding $7.4 billion to short term (less than 3 year) funds while selling down $4.0 billion of explicitly long-dated bond products.

Summing up with one top-of-the-house observation: October’s volatility significantly chilled the environment for ETF flows.

  • From an average $23 billion/month from January-September, October will likely come in closer to $4-5 billion (it was $3.3 billion through yesterday).
  • The money flows sloshing around this $3.5 trillion pool of capital during October gravitated to de-risking in both bonds (shorter durations, higher quality) and equities (out of small cap/into large, Value over Growth).

All this sets up a November-December US equity market where either volatility rapidly declines (reigniting animal spirits and fresh inflows) or October’s churn is the new normal (more bond de-risking/Value/Growth rotation). At present, we are in the latter camp. October was a wake-up call for US investors, as the ETF flow data clearly shows. We remain positive on US equities, but expect more volatility in the coming weeks before things finally settle out. Psychology doesn’t change just because the calendar does.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qlbwJW Tyler Durden

Despite $900 Billion Spent and 2,400 U.S. Lives Lost, Afghanistan Continues to Deteriorate

A new report is out from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR)—the government’s watchdog for the war—and its findings paint an ugly picture: despite billions spent and thousands of U.S. lives lost, Afghanistan is facing worsening violence and instability.

SIGAR’s quarterly report to Congress—it’s 40st since the conflict began—found that the U.S.-backed Afghan government controls or influences just 56 percent of the administrative districts in the country, down from 72 percent in 2015. By comparison, some 14 percent of districts are now controlled or influenced by insurgent forces, and another 30 percent are rated “contested.”

The loss of territory has coincided with a slight drop in violent incidents. There were a reported 63 violent incidences per day in Afghanistan from February to May of this year (the period covered by the SIGAR report), a 7 percent decrease from the same period last year. However, both targeted assassinations and suicide bombings were up in the same period, rising 35 percent and 78 percent respectively, from last year.

Civilian deaths are also up. A record 1,692 civilians were killed in the first six months of 2018, according to the SIGAR report, slightly more than the 1,672 civilians killed last year, and a massive increase from the 1,052 civilians killed in 2009. When factoring in injuries, total casualties had declined slightly in the first six months of this year to 5,122, down from 5,272 last year.

Of these casualties, the SIGAR report—relying on United Nations data—found that 67 percent were the result of anti-government forces, while 20 percent were attributed to pro-government forces, which would include the U.S.

Some 353 casualties (149 dead and 204 injured) were the result of airstrikes, up from 232 last year and coinciding with a sharp increase in the number of U.S. airstrikes this year.

In addition to the ongoing violence in the country, SIGAR has found that U.S. efforts to stabilize the country have “mostly failed,” despite our spending some $4.7 billion on such efforts since 2002. In a bulleted list of “lessons learned,” the SIGAR report notes that “the U.S. government greatly overestimated its ability to build and reform government institutions in Afghanistan” and U.S. aid—far from reducing violence or strengthening Afghan governance—often “exacerbated conflicts, enabled corruption, and bolstered support for insurgents.”

The SIGAR report also had harsh words for the U.S. government’s attempts to crackdown on opium production, with Special Inspector General John F. Sopko saying that despite $8 billion spent on counternarcotics efforts since 2002, “Afghanistan’s opium crisis is worse than ever.”

None of this should come as much of a surprise, given the mind-boggling waste SIGAR has previously reported in Afghanistan, including spending $43 million on a compressed natural gas station and another $60 million on a Marriot hotel in downtown Kabul that, despite being totally unoccupied, still requires heavy security to prevent insurgents using the ghost building as a base from which to fire rockets down into the nearby U.S. embassy.

This newest report is a depressing reminder that after losing 2,400 U.S. military personnel and spending some $900 billion total on the war, the U.S. has failed to build a stable, democratic Afghani government that can provide for its own security.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2SC3qtp
via IFTTT

Condemning Extreme Rhetoric, NYT Columnist Says Conservative Pundits Incite Murder

Donald Trump calls journalists who fail to fawn over him “the enemy of the people.” New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg calls right-wing commentators who say things that offend him “the Incitement Industry.” While the president’s critics hear echoes of Stalin and Mao in his rhetoric, I hear echoes of Brandenburg v. Ohio in Rutenberg’s.

Brandenburg is the 1969 case in which the Supreme Court held that it’s unconstitutional to punish people for advocating illegal activity or the use of force “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Rutenberg seems to be implying that hyperbolic, outlandish, and inaccurate statements by conservative provocateurs such as Jeanine Pirro, Dinesh D’Souza, and Ann Coulter meet that test, meaning that they could be punished or censored without violating the First Amendment.

Am I reading too much into Rutenberg’s column? You tell me:

[D’Souza’s movie Death of a Nation] makes the case that the Nazi platform was similar to that of today’s Democratic Party. Prominent among its villains is George Soros, who was allegedly sent a pipe bomb by Cesar Sayoc Jr., who also is accused of sending similar packages to Hillary Clinton and [Barack] Obama….

The Incitement Industry can also be a driving force at Fox News, which has lately featured guests who have asserted without evidence that Mr. Soros financed the migrant caravan making its slow way toward the southern border of the United States. Someone who shared that view was the man charged with killing 11 congregants during a hate-driven shooting rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

The implication is clear enough that Rutenberg felt a need to add a disclaimer:

Violent acts, it should be noted, are the responsibility of those who commit them, and the perpetrators have various ideological motivations. But the grist for emotionally disturbed or just plain violent people has never seemed so readily available.

It’s possible, of course, to believe that criminals should be held responsible for their own actions while also believing that people who incite others to violence, as Rutenberg suggests that D’Souza and Fox News have done, should be punished as well. Rutenberg stops short of saying that, instead advocating self-restraint by media gatekeepers:

Where is the line between falsehoods that may incite violence and good, old-fashioned American political hyperbole? And should book publishers and entertainment companies be more careful about the products they send out into the world in a tense sociopolitical atmosphere?

So no, Rutenberg is not saying the government should censor people like D’Souza, Pirro, and Coulter or arrest them for participating in the Incitement Industry. But neither did Trump say the journalists he condemns as enemies of the people should be executed. In both cases, the epithet is troubling because of the history to which it alludes. While it’s sadly plausible that Trump was (at least initially) ignorant of the relevant history, it would be hard for a professional chronicler of the media to claim the same excuse.

None of the commentary Rutenberg cites would actually meet the Brandenburg test, which requires an intent to incite violence and a likelihood of succeeding right away. But Rutenberg, who says the Incitement Industry promoted the ideas that “provided a backdrop for mass murder in Pittsburgh and the recent pipe-bomb mailings to Barack Obama, the Clintons, George Soros and CNN,” is charging his political opponents with complicity in homicidal violence. That’s a pretty neat trick in a column bemoaning extreme rhetoric.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2PxGiNX
via IFTTT