‘Low- Vol’ Quant Strategies Suffer Vol Explosion Amid Commodity, EM Collapse

Amid the chaos and uncertainty of our ever-changing world of tweets, threats, and actions, seeking the safe-haven of so-called “low-vol” or “all-weather” portfolios makes sense right? Wrong!

While levering up long bets on the most-levered and worst-balance-sheet companies has paid off dramatically, Bloomberg’s Dani Burger reports that risk-parity funds – designed to be diversifiers of risk based on volatility changes – are among the worst-performing strategies in 2018 tracked by JPMorgan.

Burger  notes that the commodity train wreck, emerging-market turmoil and shifts in government bonds have created a wave of turbulence in quant strategies this year…

As long-term correlations break-down and resume as if they were penny stocks themselves.

From the trade clash to extreme moves in developing assets,  Burger points out  that portfolios have struggled to find shelter so far this year, with turmoil in metals the latest in a list of stresses.

No one’s saying risk parity is broken. Proponents say the strategy can sustain bouts of underperformance — by design, it captures the average return across assets, so it can outperform in the long run.

“Everyone’s performance has been soft this year relative to U.S. stocks,” Roberto Croce, director of quantitative research at Salient Partners LP.

“Risk parity is trying to be in the middle, trying to get diversification. It’s never going to be the top-performing thing, but it won’t be the bottom either.”

But for now, it means that because the funds have modest allocations to some of the riskier markets, they haven’t harvested the best returns on offer this year, generated by U.S. stocks. Maneesh Shanbhag, who co-founded Greenline Partners LLC after almost five years at Bridgewater Associates LP, concurs.

“Equities came off low valuations to deliver higher returns,” he said. “Now, risk parity looks relatively dull but has delivered what it was supposed to.”

The only managers to fare worse that Risk-Parity funds this year are trend-chasing commodity trade advisers, or CTAs.

Read more here…

Finally, Burger sums it all up in four simple words: “no quant is safe.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Lgq7i1 Tyler Durden

7 Measures Of Expected Return (& None Of Them Good)

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Last week, I discussed a recent article by Mark Hulbert on “8-Measures Say A Crash Is Coming.” In that article, we discussed the issue of valuation and forward returns specifically. To wit:

“No matter, how many valuation measures I use, the message remains the same. From current valuation levels, the expected rate of return for investors over the next decade will be low. 

This is shown in the chart below, courtesy of Michael Lebowitz, which shows the standard deviation from the long-term mean of the “Buffett Indicator,” or market capitalization to GDP, Tobin’s Q, and Shiller’s CAPE compared to forward real total returns over the next 10-years.”

In the short-term, a period of one year or less, political, fundamental, and economic data has very little impact on the market. This is especially the case in a late-stage bull market advance, such as we are currently experiencing, where the momentum chase has exceeded the grasp of the risk being undertaken by unwitting investors.

As I noted this past weekend, 

“As we head into 2019, the odds of a recessionary drawdown in the market rises markedly. On a QUARTERLY basis, the market is currently at one of the most overbought, extended and deviated levels in history going back 75 years. Every previous period has led to a correction of some magnitude. The only difference between a correction, and a more serious crash, was the level of valuations at the time.”

“While this certainly doesn’t mean the market will mean revert tomorrow, it does imply that forward returns for current levels will be substantially lower than they have been over the last several years.”

As I stated, over the next days, weeks, and even the next few months, “price is the only thing that matters.”

“Price measures the current ‘psychology’ and ‘direction’ of the ‘herd.’ It is the clearest representation of the behavioral dynamics of the living organism we call ‘the market.’”

However, over the long-term, it is fundamentals which matter the most. I have shown you the following chart many times before which is simply a comparison of 10-year forward total real returns from every previous P/E ratio.

I know, I know.

“P/E’s don’t matter anymore because of Central Bank interventions, accounting gimmicks, share buybacks, etc.”

It was the same in 2000 and 2007 when the “bull market psychology” makes such antiquated ideas like “value” seem irrelevant.

The important point to understand is that over the long-term investing period “value” and “returns” are both inextricably linked and diametrically opposed. And, as shown above, given current valuation levels, forward returns are expected to be lower than the long-term average.

Before we look at different valuation measures, let’s review what “low forward returns” does and does not mean.

  • It does NOT mean the stock market will have annual rates of return of sub-3% each year over the next 10-years.

  • It DOES mean the stock market will have stellar gains in some years, a big crash somewhere in between, or several smaller ones, and the average return over the decade will be low. 

“This is shown in the table and chart below which compares a 7% annual return (as often promised) to a series of positive returns with a loss, or two, along the way. (Note: the annual average return without the crashes is 7% annually also.)”

“From current valuation levels, two-percent forward rates of return are a real possibility. As shown, all it takes is a correction, or crash, along the way to make it a reality.”

This isn’t a prediction, it is just statistical probability and simple math.

With the premise in mind, let’s take a look at a variety of valuation measures as compared to forward 10-year returns.

Do Valuations Still Matter OR Is This Time Really Different?

Let’s see.

Tobin’s Q-ratio measures the market value of a company’s assets divided by its replacement costs. The higher the ratio, the higher the cost resulting in lower returns going forward.

Just as a comparison, I have added Shiller’s CAPE-10. Not surprisingly the two measures not only have an extremely high correlation, but the return outcome remains the same.

One of the arguments has been that higher valuations are acceptable because interest rates have been so low. As we can see below, when we take the smoothed P/E ratio (CAPE-10 above) and compare it to the 10-year average of interest rates going back to 1900, the valuation to interest rate argument fails.

As noted above, historical valuation measures have been dismissed for a variety of reasons from Central Bank interventions to the rise of automation. However, while earnings can be manipulated through a variety of measures like share buybacks, accounting gimmickry, and wage suppression, “sales,” or “revenue,” which occurs at the top-line of the income statement is much harder to “fudge.” Not surprisingly, the higher the level of price-to-sales, the lower the forward returns have been. You may also want to notice the current price-to-sales is now the highest level in history as well.

Corporate return on equity (ROE) sends the same message.

Even Warren Buffett’s favorite indicator, market cap to GDP, clearly suggests that investments made today will have a rather lackluster return over the next decade.

Even when we invert the P/E ratio, and look at earnings/price, or more commonly known as the “earnings yield,” the message remains the same.

No matter, how many valuation measures you wish to use, there is no measure which currently suggests valuations are “cheap” enough to provide investors with sufficiently high enough returns over the next decade to meet their investment goals.

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting the next “financial crisis” is just around the next corner. I am simply suggesting that based on a variety of measures, forward returns will be relatively low as compared to what has been witnessed over the last decade. This is particularly the case as the Fed, and Central Banks globally, begin to extract themselves from their long cycle of interventions. 

As stated above, this does not mean that markets will just produce single-digit rates of return each year for the next decade. The reality is there will be some great years to be invested over that period, unfortunately, like in the past, the bulk of those years will be spent making up the losses from the coming recession and market correction.

That is the nature of investing in the markets. There will be fantastic bull market runs as we have witnessed over the last decade, but in order for you to experience the up, you will have to deal with the eventual down. It is just part of the full-market cycle which encompass every economic and business cycle.

Despite the hopes of many, market and economic cycles have not been repealed. Yes, they can surely be delayed and extended by artificial interventions, but they can not be stalled indefinitely.

How you choose to handle the second-half of the full-market cycle is entirely up to you. However, “this time is not different,” and in the end, many investors will once again be reminded of this simple fact.

Unfortunately, those reminders tend to come in the most brutal of manners.  

via RSS https://ift.tt/2BwON5X Tyler Durden

ICE Kept This Citizen and Father of 4 Locked Up for Nearly 2 Years

A New York man is finally home after spending almost two years in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. But Levy Jaen only earned his freedom because a court affirmed what he already knew—that he’s an American citizen.

For much of his life, Jaen had no reason to doubt his citizenship. The 46-year-old was born in Panama, but his parents moved to New York in the 1950s, and his father eventually became a U.S. citizen. Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa and made a life for himself in the U.S., fathering four children, one of whom is autistic.

Technically speaking, Jaen’s biological father was a man his mother had an affair with, according to his birth certificate. But his mother and her husband stayed together, and since his siblings were all American citizens, Jaen assumed he was as well, BuzzFeed News reports.

ICE disagreed. After Jaen finished serving time for his second drug conviction in April 2016, the immigration enforcement agency wanted to deport him. While lawyers for both sides battled it out in court, Jaen was held in the Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey.

Jaen’s attorneys argued that his real father was the man who raised him and treated him like a son. ICE claimed a biological relationship is necessary in order to pass citizenship from father to son.

“It is really striking for the government to be running around telling marital families that ‘no, this isn’t really a family,'” Ian Samuel, an attorney for Jaen, tells BuzzFeed. “That offends some of the oldest instincts we have as a civilized people.”

For nearly two years, Jaen and his children wondered if he was going to be deported. Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled this past April that Jaen could return home. “I felt that weight uplifted from my back. It was the happiest day of my life for me, my kids and my family,” he tells BuzzFeed.

Months later, the court explained that children born to married couples are considered legal children of the husband. The biological father doesn’t matter. “This presumption,” the court wrote in its written opinion, released last week, “has reflected the traditional ‘aversion to declaring children illegitimate,’ as well as an interest in promoting familial tranquillity through deference to the marital family.”

Jaen’s case is tragic, but he’s not alone. In April, a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that ICE agents accidentally target American citizens on a regular basis. The agency has been forced to release nearly 1,500 U.S. citizens from custody since 2012.

Reason‘s Shikha Dalmia detailed the problem in December, revealing that ICE has illegally detained or deported more than 20,000 U.S. citizens over the years:

Jacqueline Stevens, a political scientist at Northwestern University and an expert on deportation law, estimates that in 2010 alone, over 4,000 U.S. citizens were detained or deported as aliens. Between 2003 and 2010, more than 20,000 Americans suffered the same fate. At any given time, Stevens maintains, about 1 percent of the inmates in immigration detention nationwide are American citizens. That figure may sound unbelievable, but in fact it is a conservative estimate.

Immigration hawks say cracking down on those who enter the U.S. illegally helps American citizens. A U.S. citizen detained by ICE might disagree.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2N7nGQo
via IFTTT

Internet Buzzing After Julian Assange’s Mother Implicates Seth Rich In DNC Leak

The internet is buzzing with theories after Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, tweeted – and then deleted – what many believe to be an admission that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich “leaked docs proving corruption.” 

In response to the question “why did Julian publish damning docs against Hillary at such a crucial time which gave Humpty Dumpty Trump the upper hand?” Christine Assange replied “Its the duty of media to inform citizens about corruption,” adding “a #DNC #Bernie supporter disgruntled with rigging leaked docs proving corruption.” 

“What should Wikileaks should have done? Hold on to them till after the election to advantage #Hillary?” she continued, adding “You are shooting the messenger!” 

Many have pointed out that Mrs. Assange’s the description fits that of Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC IT staffer who was slain on his way home from a local bar on July 10, 2016, five days after a forensics analysis indicated that the DNC emails were copied locally – which was the same day Romanian hacker “Guccifer 2.0” claims to have haced the DNC, per the Washington Post. 

12 days after Rich’s murder, on July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee revealing that Bernie Sanders’ campaign was undermined when the DNC and the Clinton campaign colluded to share questions before a debate. 

Of note, cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike reported on June 14, 2016 that Russia had infiltrated the DNC, after the DNC reported a suspected breach in April of that year. The DNC has received criticism for not allowing the FBI to analyze their servers for hacking, relying only on the Crowdstrike analysis performed by anti-Putin Russian expat – a senior fellow on the very anti-Russia Atlantic Council. 

Christine Assange’s supposed admission caused many on Twitter to note that her son, Julian Assange, “heavily implied” that Rich was the leaker in an August, 2016 interview on Dutch television when he brought up Assange in the context of WikiLeaks whistleblowers, and then nodded his head when asked directly if Rich was a source.

Deleted tweet

Christine Assange later deleted her controversial tweet, writing that people had wrongfully asserted “Julians mother confirms its #SethRich.” 

She then cited former UK Ambassador Craig Murray and the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, who all say the Russians did not hack the DNC. 

Meanwhile, Twitter users have been left scratching their heads at the entire thing: 

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

New York Sets Up First Statewide Panel to Investigate Prosecutorial Misconduct

Gov. Andrew CuomoNew York will be the first state to establish an independent commission to investigate claims of misconduct by county-level prosecutors. Or rather, it will, unless the prosecutors use the courts to stop the law from taking effect.

On Monday, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that would create a commission to investigate claims of misconduct by prosecutors within the state. The panel is based on a similar panel in the state used to evaluate judges. It would have the authority to investigate claims of improper behavior by the state’s 62 district attorneys (and their subordinates) and can censure them or even go so far as to recommend to the governor that the prosecutor be removed.

The timing of this bill connects well to the most recent report of exonerations in the United States. Last year, dozens of people were release from prison after misconduct by various government officials was uncovered. All but two out of 13 exonerations of prisoners in New York last year involved official misconduct in some capacity (this could include police and judges, not just prosecutors).

Prosecutors are rarely ever punished for misconduct when it’s caught. Matt Ferner at The Huffington Post tags a report from 2013 showing that less than two percent of prosecutors found to have engaged in misconduct have been sanctioned in any way for misbehavior between the years of 1963 to 2013. In New York, only three prosecutors have been punished in 151 cases of misconduct from 2004 to 2008.

District attorneys are nevertheless resistant and are planning to file suit. The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York is trying to stop it, saying the measure is unnecessary and unconstitutional and is telling prosecutors to resist appointment to the commission to try to keep it from actually operating (prosecutors will be assigned to four of the 11 seats). The association complains that only the governor can remove prosecutors. Cuomo’s signature on the bill comes with a condition that it be amended to fix any constitutional concerns before the commission actually gets to work.

The district attorneys also point to existing grievance committees in each appellate division to handle complaints. One such committee disbarred a former district attorney over the summer for misconduct. But opponents point to those stats Ferner mentioned. Prosecutors are rarely ever punished for misbehavior, even when it results in innocent people being imprisoned for years.

The Innocence Project praised Cuomo for signing the legislation. As Policy Director Rebecca Brown notes in a statement, “while most prosecutors respect their ethical obligations, far too many innocent people have been wrongly convicted as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, and until today there was no effective means for holding those who commit bad acts accountable. We hope other states will follow New York’s lead and address this serious problem plaguing the criminal justice system.”

Read the bill here.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2w2brOr
via IFTTT

In the Feud Between Donald Trump and John Brennan, It’s a Shame They Can’t Both Lose

Last week, President Trump revoked former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. It’s yet another presidential feud designed to force the public to take sides: Are you with Trump or against him? It’s a late-summer matchup that brings to mind the eternally useful tagline from another ugly showdown, Aliens vs. Predator: Whoever wins, we lose.

The decision to strip Brennan’s clearance prompted howls of outrage from the media. Brennan is one of Trump’s most prominent and aggressive critics; Trump’s move, the argument went, was intended to punish and silence him as political payback.

A White House spokesperson initially said that Brennan’s clearance was revoked for making “wild outbursts on the internet and television” about the current administration, but Trump himself later indicated that the decision was related to Brennan’s early role in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about Brennan, Trump said, “I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham. And these people led it! So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

Trump’s critics, in other words, had at least a partial point: The president himself all but confirmed that he targeted Brennan as an act of political retribution.

Defenders of the president’s move, in response, argued that security clearances for ex-government officials were profitable status markers, and that Brennan, in particular, was a loose cannon whose criticism of the president had grown increasingly erratic and over the top.

They, too, had a point: When criticizing the president, Brennan sometimes alluded to his security clearance, bolstering the impression that he was speaking with an insider’s knowledge. In a piece for The New York Times last week, for example, Brennan wrote, “While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware—thanks to the reporting of an open and free press—of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services.” The clear intent of the line is to leave the impression that, because of special access, he knows more than he can say.

Yet by his own admission, Brennan’s accusations against the president were exaggerated. Following Trump’s appearance with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Brennan called the the president’s actions “nothing short of treasonous.”

You might assume that when Brennan, a former high ranking intelligence community official, described a president’s behavior as “treasonous” he meant that it was treason. Not so. As Brennan awkwardly explained on Rachel Maddow last week, what he really meant was…something else.

…For Mr. Trump to so cavalierly so dismiss that, yes, sometimes my Irish comes out and in my tweets. And I did say that it rises to and exceeds the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and nothing short of treasonous, because he had the opportunity there to be able to say to the world that this is something that happened. And that’s why I said it was nothing short of treasonous. I didn’t mean that he committed treason.

It is possible to believe that President Trump targeted Brennan for political reasons, and also that Brennan is unhinged and unreliable, relying partly on his security clearance to bolster his credibility as a critic of the president. (As Reason’s Scott Shackford wrote last week, there is both good news and bad news in this story.)

But it is harder to see Trump’s gambit as, in Brennan’s words, “an attempt to scare into silence” others who might challenge the president. Or at the very least, if that’s what it is, it’s an attempt that isn’t likely to be very successful. As Bloomberg’s Eli Lake wrote, it’s better understood as a move to elevate Brennan into a useful foil. After all, following the loss of his clearance, Brennan made the argument that Trump was engaged in a silencing effort in The New York Times.

This is a typical play for Trump, who likes to single out individuals in order to turn them into enemies: Think of his relentless and polarizing Twitter attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel or Khizr Khan. Here his choice of antagonist is far less sympathetic, but it’s the same essential dynamic at work. Trump thrives on personal feuds and polarizing vendettas, especially those that entice critics into exaggerated attacks, which inspire greater devotion from loyalists in response, and so on and so forth. Trump has turned national politics into an unending series of petty tabloid feuds. He isn’t really interested in a nuanced debate about security clearance status markers or profiting off of working in government; he just wants to perpetuate the cycle of squabbling, forever forcing people to choose one side or the other. Are you Team Trump? Are you Team Resistance? Aliens or predator? In this case, it’s truly a shame they can’t both lose.

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

Texas Exports More Oil Than It Imports For First Time Ever

Authored by Irina Slav via Oilprice.com,

The Texas Gulf Coast oil terminals sent abroad more crude than they received in April, the Energy Information Administration said this week. During that month, crude oil exports from the Houston-Galveston port district exceeded imports by 15,000 bpd. Over the next month, the advantage of exports over imports welled further, to an impressive 470,000 bpd.

Total U.S. oil exports in may hit a record of 2 million bpd, with Houston-Galveston’s share of the total at a record-breaking 70 percent, from an average of about 50 percent since the middle of 2017, the EIA said.

The bulk of crude oil exports from the Houston-Galveston area went to China, Canada, Italy, and the UK, with exports to China averaging 300,000 bpd in both June and July. This month, however, not a single crude oil cargo has been loaded for China, according to media reports, amid growing trade tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Meanwhile, however, Texas is on track to become the biggest oil producer after Russia and Saudi Arabia, according to production estimates by HSBC, quoted by CNN. If the estimates turn out to be correct, the Lone Star State will be pumping almost 6 million bpd in 2019.

RBC goes further, expecting production in Texas to boom to more than 6.5 million barrels daily over the next seven to ten years. Not everyone is so optimistic, however. Skeptics believe the shale oil boom in Texas led by the Permian Basin, will peak at much lower levels than 6 million bpd, not least because of the substantial debt loads of many shale drillers in the area.

Until this happens, oil production in the state is growing: over the 12 months to June it added 27 percent to 4.3 million bpd, according to the latest report from the Texas Alliance of Energy producers. This represented 40 percent of the U.S. total for that month.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Buj05V Tyler Durden

S&P Hits New Record High As Yield Curve Crashes To 11 Year Low

Almost exactly 7 months after it last hit a record high, the S&P 500 has surged off last week’s ‘Turkey crisis’ dip on China trade-talk headlines and broken to a new record high – despite collapsing yield curve and dismal economic data.

2872.87 was the previous high…How appropriate that we hit a new record high right as stocks reach the longest bull market in history.

Spot The Difference…

US Macro data has done nothing but disappoint in recent weeks, but don’t let that stop the buying panic…

The Treasury yield curve (2s10s), however, is trading at 22bps – its flattest since August 2007…

And the last three months have been led overwhelmingly by Defensives…

What happens when the China trade talks end with no result?

Believe…

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

Fed’s Kaplan: Three Or Four More Rate Hikes Before Stopping To Assess

Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said that with the current fed funds rate at 1.75-2.00%, the Fed should continue raising interest rates until they hit their neutral level, which he said is about “three or four quarter-point rate increases away.”

“At that point, I would be inclined to step back and assess the outlook for the economy and look at a range of other factors—including the levels and shape of the Treasury yield curve—before deciding what further actions, if any, might be appropriate.” Even so, he admits that the shape of the yield curve, which yesterday dipped to a new post-crisis low of 22bps, “suggests to me we are ‘late’ in the economic cycle” although he mitigated the risk, saying “I do not discount the significance of an inverted yield curve.”

The Dallas Fed projects full-year GDP growth of about 3%, and notes that “2018 will be a strong year for economic growth in the U.S. Reasons include a strong consumer sector, improved prospects for business investment due to tax incentives, solid global growth and substantial fiscal stimulus due to recent tax legislation and budget agreements.”

However, echoing the analysis of his former employer Goldman, Kaplan cautions that “while 2018 will be strong, economic growth is likely to moderate in 2019 and 2020 as the impact of fiscal stimulus wanes and monetary policy approaches a more neutral stance. Their view has been that potential GDP growth in the U.S. is in the range of 1.75 to 2 percent and actual real GDP growth will likely reach this level by 2020 or 2021.”

Kaplan also expects unemployment rate to fall to 3.7% by year-end, and  expects “headline personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation will remain in the neighborhood of the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target during the remainder of 2018.”

“While our economists are hopeful that a strong labor market might continue to draw in new entrants who are currently out of the workforce, it is our base-case view that the current rate of labor force growth is unlikely to continue.”

What are the key challenges facing the Fed according to Kaplan? He lays it out in the concluding section “where we go from here” in which he notes the following: “the challenge for the Fed is to raise the federal funds rate in a gradual manner calibrated to extend this expansion, but not so gradually as to get behind the curve so that we have to play catch-up and raise rates quickly. Having to raise rates quickly would likely increase the risk of recession.

The full section is below.

When I joined the Fed in September of 2015, the federal funds rate was 0.0 to 0.25 percent. This rate had not been adjusted since late 2008. The Fed’s balance sheet stood at approximately $4.5 trillion.

Since that time, the Fed has been able to gradually remove accommodation and implement a plan to reduce the size of its balance sheet. Over this period, the unemployment rate has moved down substantially and inflation is now running at approximately 2 percent.

At this juncture, the challenge for the Fed is to raise the federal funds rate in a gradual manner calibrated to extend this expansion, but not so gradually as to get behind the curve so that we have to play catch-up and raise rates quickly. Having to raise rates quickly would likely increase the risk of recession.

As I judge the pace at which we should be raising the federal funds rate, I will be carefully watching the U.S. Treasury yield curve. Currently the one-year Treasury rate is 2.44 percent, the two-year is 2.61 percent and the 10-year is 2.87 percent.[21] My own view is that the short end of the Treasury curve is responding to Federal Reserve policy expectations. The longer end of the curve is telling me that, while there is substantial global liquidity and a search for safe assets, expectations for future growth are sluggish—and this is consistent with an expectation that U.S. growth will trend back down to potential. Overall, the shape of the curve suggests to me we are “late” in the economic cycle. I do not discount the significance of an inverted yield curve—I believe it is worth paying attention to given the high historical correlation between inversions and recession.

I will also be closely monitoring global financial and economic developments and their potential impact on domestic financial and economic conditions. As global financial markets and economies have become increasingly interconnected, the potential for spillovers to the U.S. is greater than in the past. That is, global economic and financial instability has the potential to transmit to domestic financial markets, potentially leading to a tightening of financial conditions which, if prolonged, could lead to a slowing in U.S. economic activity.

Based on these various factors, as well as the current strength of the U.S. economy and my outlook for economic conditions over the medium term, I believe it will be appropriate for the Fed to continue to gradually move toward a neutral monetary policy stance. I believe that this gradual approach to removing monetary policy accommodation will give us the best chance of managing against imbalances and further extending the current economic expansion in the U.S.

Source: Where We Stand: Assessment of Economic Conditions and Implications for Monetary Policy

via RSS https://ift.tt/2OV4HsF Tyler Durden

Hedge Funds Rocked By Relentless Short Squeeze

Yesterday we presented Nomura’s observations on the reasons why despite the market’s ascent back to new all time highs, the bank had witnessed a “multi-month performance disaster for US equity funds.” According to Nomura’s x-asset strategist Charlie McElligott, the reason behind the underperformance of equity funds was three-fold and involved sharp moves across various factor strategies:

  • A “Beta Grab” (HF L/S beta to SPX jumps to 89th %ile from 65th %ile the prior week)
  • A re-adding of exposure to “Momentum Longs” (L/S beta to Momentum Longs leaps to 32nd %ile from the recent puke down to 10th %ile)
  • All of this despite SPX sector-performance last week showing “pure de-risking”: Telcos / Staples / REITS / Utes / Healthcare as the five best sector returns, while the bottom-six sectors were Industrials / Financials / Tech / Consumer Discretionary / Materials / Energy

Today, in its latest quarterly hedge fund monitor report which is a compilation and analysis of the latest batch of hedge fund 13Fs, Goldman’s Ben Snider confirms as much, writing that “a difficult summer has reduced the YTD return for the average equity hedge fund to -1%” largely as a result of underperformance of some of the most popular hedge funds stocks. As a result, Goldman’s basket of the most popular hedge fund positions – where FaceBook is at the very top – has lagged the S&P 500 by 118 bp so far this year (6.7% vs. 7.9%).

And speaking of Facebook…

The plunge of Facebook (FB), entered 3Q as the most popular hedge fund stock. Before its disappointing earnings results, 230 hedge funds (28%) in our sample owned FB, making it the most popular position. The average portfolio weight for FB among those funds was 4%. Among the 642 funds with between 10 and 200 distinct equity positions, 98 held FB as a top 10 portfolio position, ranking it as the top stock in our Hedge Fund VIP list.

Visually, this is how a hedge fund hotel burns down:

In other words, for yet another year, one could have bought the SPY, avoided the “2 and 20”, and outperformed the vast majority of hedge funds.

What caused this dramatic underperformance of Wall Street’s “best and brightest”?

According to Goldman, the large performance swings in the broad market and the most popular stocks “created a difficult investing environment.” Which then begs the question: why are hedge fund managers paid tens of millions if they can’t navigate “performance swings” and why do they all gravitate to the same handful of “most popular stocks”?

It certainly is not to build conviction: Goldman found that one contributor to underwhelming fund performance has been declining hedge fund net exposure. Net long exposure calculated based on 13-F filings and publicly-available short interest data registered 55% at the start of 3Q, slightly lower than in 2Q.

Data from Goldman’s Prime Services division showed a similar picture, with net leverage declining steadily during recent months while the S&P 500 recovered to within 1% of its record high.

But whereas lack of conviction is to be expected in a market that has grown increasingly decoupled between the US and the rest of the world, merely reducing one’s exposure would simply lead to more muted gains. To explain the underperformance there has to be a different reason: and sure enough, Goldman highlights just that, echoing a theme was have discussed constantly in recent weeks, namely the challenge hedge fund face as a result of the sharp outperformance of the most concentrated short positions.

Because at the same time that the most popular longs among hedge funds underperformed the S&P, a basket of the 50 Russell 3000 stocks with market caps greater than $1 billion and the largest outstanding short interest as a share of float has outperformed the S&P 500 by 14 percentage points YTD (+21% vs. +7%), Goldman found adding that in recent months, the concentrated shorts have outperformed primarily in favorite hedge fund sectors including Info Tech.

Which is a delightful confirmation of what we said back in May, when in addition to listing the top 50 hedge fund longs, we also listed the top 50 shorts and said “for those who are convinced that it’s only a matter of time before a massive squeeze sends the most shorted names soaring, here is the list of the 50 stocks representing the largest short positions among hedge funds.”

Fast forward three months later when the relentless short squeeze continues to crush hedge fund performance.

So is it too late now to piggyback on this trade, and hope for further “squeeze” higher?

Goldman’s answer is that whereas across the broad market, short interest as a share of float sits close to its 10-year median, but Consumer Staples short interest has rarely been higher.

As a result, the performance of retail stocks has been a good indicator of what happens once a short squeeze gets going: because although the sector faces pressure from rising interest rates and declining margins, the performance of retail stocks during the past year highlights the potential energy contained by stocks with extreme levels of short interest, and why in this market doing the logical thing is guaranteed to lead to acute pain.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2OP33J2 Tyler Durden