Here Are The Top 5 Consensus Trades As We Enter 2021

Here Are The Top 5 Consensus Trades As We Enter 2021

At the start of every year, the Wall Street consensus is infatuated with a set of ideas, narratives and trades, which shape markets for the next few months, quite often repricing violently especially since so many of them end up being dead wrong. 2021 is no exception, and as Reuters summarizes among the top trades which investment banks and asset managers believe will dominate financial markets in 2021, are: i) Dump the dollar!; ii) Buy emerging markets! iii) Stay sustainable… oh and pray that central banks bail you out when everything blows up.

1. King Dollar (Keeps) Falling

Covid ended a decade of dollar strength (after first creating a supernova surge in the value of the greenback as a $12 trillion dollar short squeeze shockwave which was short circuited by the Fed printing trillions), and expectations are for 2021 to bring more greenback pitfalls. BofA’s December investor survey showed ‘shorting’ the dollar was the second most crowded trade. Another gauge – U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data – shows $30 billion in net dollar shorts, swinging from last December’s $17 billion net long.

The reasoning, says Peter Fitzgerald, chief investment officer for multi-asset and macro at Aviva Investors, is that no central bank can “out-dove the Fed”. In other words, when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates near 0%, it kicked away the dollar’s yield advantage over peers. And it still has room to ease policy.  Any future reduction in trade and political tensions, likely under a Biden administration, would also be dollar-negative

How much and for how long will the dollar fall? Analysts polled by Reuters predict weakness to endure until mid-2021, capped by COVID-19 uncertainty. But PIMCO notes dollar declines are fastest after deep recessions, with five instances of 8%-10% annual depreciations recorded between 2003 and 2018. Vaccines and rebounding economies will “hasten the dollar’s fall from grace”, PIMCO predicted.

2. Re-emerging markets

With developing economies seen benefiting from recovering global trade, tourism and commodities, a weaker dollar and a more predictable White House, Morgan Stanley’s message is: “Gotta Buy EM All!” The bank is recommending currencies from China, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and Russia, alongside bonds from Ukraine and Mexican oil firm Pemex. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are also backing EM for 2021, with the BofA survey showing the sector the main overweight. Pictet says EM currencies have 25% of undervaluation to recoup.

Additionally, debt in emerging market currencies will net investors 6.2% next year, more than the S&P500, BofA expects. The sentiment swing towards a sector that’s languished for a decade is driven of course by hopes of a China-led growth recovery but also the lure of higher emerging market interest rates, given 0% or negative yields across richer countries.

Understandably, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF) investors are shovelling money into EM assets at the fastest rate in nearly a decade. But some remain wary. Higher Treasury yields could spark a 2013-style “taper tantrum”, Citi suggested. Investment-grade credit ratings are at risk in some countries such as Romania or Mexico, while more debt defaults are likely in weaker nations.

3. (Central) Banking on It

Perhaps we should have started with this one because underpinning virtually all 2021 bets is the view that the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England and People’s Bank of China will keep the cheap money flowing. As we reported previously, central banks worldwide spent $1.3 billion an hour since March on asset purchases, according to BofA. There were also 190 rate cuts in 2020 year – roughly four every five trading days. But with global GDP seen expanding 5.4% next year – the most since 1973 – it might be hard to justify pushing the pedal further to the metal, especially if inflation creeps higher.

And not much policy room is left anyway. JPMorgan estimates that over 80% of sovereign bonds from richer nations pay negative yields after factoring in inflation. Many investors including BlackRock are now underweight the sector. Still, the Big Five’s asset purchases should total $3 trillion, Pictet predicts, down from this year’s $8 trillion but enough to keep bond yields extremely low.

A note of caution from JPMorgan – consensus forecasts in the past 10-15 years have correctly called the direction of Treasury yields only 40% of the time. Which means that the most likely outcome is for sharply lower yields by year end.

4. ESG – Here For “Good”

The assets of funds investing in environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles doubled this past year to over $1.3 trillion, and the IIF predicts the pace will accelerate in 2021, especially if U.S. President-elect Joe Biden pursues a greener agenda (the irony, as we explained in September, is that most “ESG” investments are really just a handful of mega-cap tech stocks). Virtue signaled “concerns” about pollution, climate change and workers’ rights (by corporations whose bottom line is to literally minimize workers’ rights) are the main drivers. But the IIF also points out 80% of “sustainable” equity indices outperformed non-ESG peers during the pandemic-linked selloff, while renewable energy has been the runaway outperformer since then.

BlackRock describes ESG as “the tectonic shift transforming investing” (perhaps referring to the impact its own top-line is expected to see), forecasting “persistent flows into sustainable assets in the long transition to a less carbon-intensive world.” In any case, for now it’s working: two-thirds of ESG fund assets are in equities, but sustainable debt has grown 20% in 2020 to more than $620 billion. Governments are stepping up green debt issuance while central banks are eyeing more sustainable bond-buying and reserve strategies

5. Biden Time on Tech

According to Reuters, many of the above investment strategies are premised on a very different approach to trade and geopolitics under Biden. He has vowed the United States will be “ready to lead” again on the global stage, but BofA cautions that China, North Korea or Iran may look to test him early on with “provocative actions”. In some areas – big data, 5G, artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, robotics, and cybersecurity – Biden’s policies might be just as combative as Trump’s.

That may speed up the move towards what’s dubbed ‘splinternet’, with dual or multiple tech systems. Tech and e-commerce companies account for a quarter of U.S. corporate profits, while tech comprises 40% of MSCI’s emerging equity index. So watch this space.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/05/2021 – 08:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3pTigvw Tyler Durden

How I Lost an Election to Sen. Hawley and Did Not Contest

I have an op-ed in USA Today about how I lost the Yale Law School Federalist Society presidential election in 2005 to Sen. Joshua Hawley, who is currently trying to overturn President-elect Biden’s rightful win over Donald Trump. Despite the inelegant way in which Sen. Hawley won against me, I did not contest his victory at any point. His own unwillingness to show grace in defeat risks inciting violence and imperiling our democratic system.

I recommend reading my Twitter thread here, which provides more detail. For those who can’t access Twitter, the direct link to the op-ed is here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hJCi8y
via IFTTT

How I Lost an Election to Sen. Hawley and Did Not Contest

I have an op-ed in USA Today about how I lost the Yale Law School Federalist Society presidential election in 2005 to Sen. Joshua Hawley, who is currently trying to overturn President-elect Biden’s rightful win over Donald Trump. Despite the inelegant way in which Sen. Hawley won against me, I did not contest his victory at any point. His own unwillingness to show grace in defeat risks inciting violence and imperiling our democratic system.

I recommend reading my Twitter thread here, which provides more detail. For those who can’t access Twitter, the direct link to the op-ed is here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hJCi8y
via IFTTT

Proud Boys Leader Arrested In Washington Ahead Of Wednesday Protest Rally

Proud Boys Leader Arrested In Washington Ahead Of Wednesday Protest Rally

The leader of the Proud Boys, the group that has vocally supported President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, was arrested on Monday on charges of destruction of property after he arrived in Washington to protest the congressional certification of the election later this week, the NYT and WaPo reported.

The chairman of the Proud Boys – a Latin man by the name of Enrique Tarrio – was arrested by Metropolitan Police on suspicion of burning a Black Lives Matter banner torn from a historic Black church in Washington during protests last month that led to several violent clashes, including stabbings, around the city.

Enrique Tarrio, center, the leader of the Proud Boys

Police stopped a car Tarrio had been in shortly after it entered the District, said Dustin Sternbeck, a D.C. police spokesman. He said it is believed that Tarrio, who lives in Miami, was coming into the District from the airport. Sternbeck said Tarrio is charged with one misdemeanor count of destruction of property in connection with the Dec. 12 burning of a banner stolen from Asbury United Methodist Church.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department confirmed that Tarrio, 36, had been arrested on charges of destruction of property, stemming from a mid-December incident in downtown Washington. Police said Tarrio, who was in custody Monday evening, also was charged with two felony counts of possession of high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, which is a legal term for a firearms magazine that allows guns to hold additional bullets. The devices were found during the arrest, police said.

Members of the Proud Boys are planning a rally in the District on Wednesday in support of President Trump and his efforts to overturn the election outcome. Trump has urged his supporters to descend on Washington to express their dismay with the certification of the election for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. On New Year’s Day, he promoted what he described as “the BIG Protest Rally” in Washington.

Tarrio had told The Washington Post last month that he was among those who burned the banner. The church banner was ripped down after a similar rally last month.

According to WaPo, Tarrio could appear Tuesday in D.C. Superior Court. Prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in the District could modify the charges brought by police. Authorities had described the burning of the banner as a potential hate crime. Sternbeck said it would be up to prosecutors to determine whether to file hate crime charges, which could increase the penalty.

Tarrio last month told The Post that he would plead guilty to destruction of property, pay the church the cost of the banner and surrender to authorities if a criminal charge was filed. “Let me make this simple,” he said. “I did it.”

However, Tarrio said he would not admit to committing a hate crime. He said he was not motivated by race, religion or political ideology, but because he believes the Black Lives Matter movement “has terrorized the citizens of this country.”

The Proud Boys, along with members of antifa were caught in protests and marches in mid-December that gave way to violent clashes between Trump’s supporters, antifas and law enforcement, as well as vandalism and destruction of property at churches in the city, including historic Black churches. The local police said at the time that it would investigate the church attacks as potential hate crimes.

The banner that Tarrio said he participated in burning was taken from Asbury United Methodist, one of the oldest Black churches in the city. DC police have classified the burning as a destruction of property, a misdemeanor when damage is under $1,000. It is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Tarrio previously said he does not know who tore down the banner, and that neither he nor his members knew the church is predominantly African American. “We didn’t Google the church and go, ‘Oh, it’s a Black church, let’s target it,’ ” Tarrio said. “The sign was taken down because of what it represents.”

Washington is bracing for another round of protests on Wednesday, when the Senate convenes to certify the results of the Electoral College. Pro-Trump groups including the Proud Boys are expected to protest, and law enforcement officials are preparing for more violence.

Tarrio had said on Parler that the Proud Boys would “turn out in record numbers on Jan 6th,” but that they would fan out across the city “incognito.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/05/2021 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XdnG8c Tyler Durden

Andurand Hedge Fund Returns 154% In 2020 Amid Historic Oil Turmoil

Andurand Hedge Fund Returns 154% In 2020 Amid Historic Oil Turmoil

2018 was a very bad year for one-time commodity trading wunderkind, Pierre Andurand, who back in April of 2018 bet oil could soon hit $100 a barrel (and even said $300 oil is “not impossible“), but watched as his billion Andurand Commodities Fund suffered its largest monthly loss ever just a few months later as oil closed the year at just half of his target price. And while his performance in 2019 was better, the energy trader who runs one of the last big oil-focused hedge funds again failed to generate a positive return in a year when oil staged only a modest rebound.

Well what a difference a year makes: after being short in early 2020 when WTI did the unthinkable and on April 20 traded as low as a negative $40/bbl, Andurand redeemed himself following losses in the previous two years, and according to Bloomberg, his hedge fund stormed back in 2020 to post its biggest-ever gain.

The flagship Andurand Commodities Fund, which mostly bets on rises and falls in oil prices, was up 68.6% for the year, according to a Bloomberg source, while the Discretionary Enhanced Fund, which was launched in 2019 without pre-set risk limits, surged 154%. That made it not only the best performing commodity fund, but also one of the year’s best-performing hedge funds across all products and sectors.

As we reported at the time, most of the funds’ gains came in March (up 63.5%) and April when energy prices collapsed amid the covid lockdowns, and when Andurand was uncharacteristically – if 100% spot on correct – bearish on oil (we warned just weeks before the infamous price implosion that negative prices could be coming, and one month later that’s precisely what happened) .

According to Bloomberg, Andurand’s returns were the best since his main fund made 38% in 2014. The solid 2020 performance is reminiscent of his strong gains during the last financial crisis at his previous firm BlueGold, which he co-founded with Dennis Crema in 2007 and launched the following year. He made more than 210% in 2008.

The solid performance could not come any sooner for the fund which has emerged as one of the very few commodity hedge funds still trading. Many of the biggest names have exited the market, including Astenbeck Capital Management, Blenheim Capital Management and Clive Capital, each of which managed billions of dollars at its peak, but which were forced to shutdown following major losses in recent years as oil cratered on several occasions in the past 6 years.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/05/2021 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bmQFyP Tyler Durden

Congress Targets Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google for Being Popular

topicstech

With fresh faces in the White House and Congress, many Trump-era political agendas will soon be discarded. But the desire to use antitrust law against popular tech companies isn’t likely to go anywhere. In recent months, Republicans and Democrats have both been itching to flex their regulatory muscle against the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon.

In October, 11 state attorneys general—all Republicans—and the Department of Justice filed a civil suit against Google, accusing the internet search giant of maintaining a digital search and ad monopoly “through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices,” in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But the lawsuit fails to explain either how Google’s practices amount to anything other than normal business deals or how consumers are being harmed.

The bar for showing consumer harm “is unlikely to be met,” said Jessica Melugin, associate director of Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a statement about the lawsuit. That’s “why so many antitrust enthusiasts are calling for a fundamental rewriting and expansion of U.S. antitrust laws. Those proposed changes sacrifice the primacy of consumer welfare and insert competitors and broader socio-economic goals in its place.”

This impetus was on full display in a fall report from the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. After a 16-month investigation into the big four tech companies, it seems the most that congressional busybodies can accuse them of is routine business practices and having popular services. But while the 450-page report, issued in October, offers scant evidence of these companies violating current federal law, it’s full of calls to change the law so tech company actions will fall under federal purview.

The subcommittee’s bipartisan “Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets” included seven additional hearings, hundreds of interviews, and nearly 1.3 million obtained “documents and communications.” For all that work, the members found little that’s not already public knowledge and even less to suggest these companies acted in an illegal way.

The report repeatedly accuses Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google of having “monopolies” in various facets of digital life. But it uses this term to mean not having exclusive domain over a product or service but merely enjoying large market shares thanks to consumers choosing to use them.

For instance, the report faults “the strong network effects associated with Facebook” for tipping “the market toward monopoly.” Network effects refers to the fact that the more people who are on a particular platform, the more value it holds for users—a phenomenon driven by individual choices and calculations, not anti-competitive action or a lack of alternatives. (Also notable: Facebook’s share of social media traffic has actually been declining for a few years.)

The subcommittee faults Google because “a significant number of entities…depend on Google for traffic”—as if Google is doing something wrong by building a search engine that millions of people choose to use, thereby making it a significant traffic source for sites across the web.

The report faults Amazon for things like having “significant and durable market power in the U.S. online retail market” and preferentially listing its own brands in search results among products from millions of third-party sellers. It faults Apple for pre-installing its own apps on iPhones and iPads and for running an app store that gives users access to outside apps, suggesting that this is “controlling access to more than 100 million iPhones and iPads.”

It’s one of the report’s many misrepresentations about how technologies work and whom they benefit. Without an app store, consumers would have to tediously trawl the web for each new app they wanted to access—almost ensuring that now-dominant names would become even more dominant. New or small offerings now discoverable through the centralized app marketplace would be far less visible or would have to spend far much more on marketing. The app store may benefit Apple, but it also benefits Apple customers and independent app developers.

“Last year in the United States alone, the App Store facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85 percent of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers,” Apple said in a statement, pointing out that the company “does not have a dominant market share in any category” where it does business.

Google accused the report of being out of touch with what consumers want while containing “outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services.”

Amazon also objected to the subcommittee’s “regulatory spit-balling on antitrust,” writing in a blog post that “large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong.”

Calling Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google monopolies only works if we’re departing from traditional definitions of the word and its historical meaning in antitrust law. The report calls this redefinition a modernization.

“Congress must lead the path forward to modernize [antitrust laws] for the economy of today,” wrote subcommittee chair David Cicilline (D–R.I.) in the report’s introduction, which also spells out Congress’ intention to more aggressively enforce those laws. “These firms have too much power, and power must be reined in,” wrote Cicilline.

The report recommends a wide swath of changes, including prohibiting “dominant platforms from operating in adjacent lines of business” and creating new presumptions against tech acquisitions. At the progressive magazine The American Prospect, David Dayen suggested gleefully that subcommittee members are “using tech as simply a case study on what an invigorated legislative body can do to rein in the corporate power of any type.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hH7DJg
via IFTTT