No Strategy Works All The Time & The 10-Rules That Do

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

I was recently reviewing some old notes and ran across a comment made by David Merkel from the Aleph Blog back in 2013. The discussion centered around the impact of volatility on investment disciplines. The most important concept is that most investors tend to chase performance. Unfortunately, performance chasing occurs very late in the investment cycle as exuberance overtakes logic which leads to consistent underperformance. What David touches on is the importance of being disciplined when it comes to your investment approach, however, that is singularly the most difficult part of being a successful investor.

“One of the constants in investing is that investment theories are disbelieved, prosper, bloom, overshoot, die, and repeat. So is the only constant change? That’s not my view.

There are valid theories on investing, and they work on average. If you pursue them consistently, you will do well. If you pursue them after failure, you can do better still. How many times have you seen articles on investing entitled ‘The Death of ____.’ (fill in the blank) Strategies trend. There is an underlying kernel of validity; it makes economic sense, and has worked in the past. But any strategy can be overplayed, even my favorite strategy, value investing. 

Prepare yourself for volatility. It is the norm of the market. Focus on what you can control – margin of safety.By doing that you will be ready for most of the vicissitudes of the market, which stem from companies taking too much credit or operating risk.

Finally, don’t give up. Most people who give up do so at a time where stock investments are about to turn. It’s one of those informal indicators to me, when I hear people giving up on an asset class. It makes me want to look at the despised asset class, and see what bargains might be available.

Remember, valid strategies work on average, but they don’t work every month or year. Drawdowns shake out the weak-minded, and boost the performance of value investors willing to buy stocks when times are pessimistic.”

When it comes to investing it is important to remember that no investment strategy works all the time.

Most guys know that in baseball a player that is batting .300 is a really solid hitter. In fact, according to the “Baseball-Almanac,” the ALL-TIME leader was Ty Cobb with a lifetime average of .366. This means that every time that Ty Cobb stepped up to the plate he was only likely to get a hit a 36.6% of the time.  In other words he struck out, or walked, roughly 2 out of every three times at bat. All of a sudden that doesn’t sound as great, but compared to the performance of other players – it was fantastic.

The problem is a .366 average won’t get you into the “investor hall of fame”; it will likely leave you broke. When it comes to investing it requires about a .600 average to win the game long-term. No, you are not going to invest in the markets and win every time. You are going to have many more losers than you think. What separates the truly great investors from the average person is how they deal with their losses – not their winners.

10-Rules That Work

There are 10 basic investment rules that have historically kept investors out of trouble over the long term. These are not unique by any means but rather a list of investment rules that in some shape, or form, has been uttered by every great investor in history.

1) You are a speculator – not an investor

Unlike Warren Buffet who takes control of a company and can affect its financial direction – you can only speculate on the future price someone is willing to pay you for the pieces of paper you own today. Like any professional gambler – the secret to long-term success was best sung by Kenny Rogers; “You gotta know when to hold’em…know when to fold’em”

2) Asset allocation is the key to winning the “long game”

In today’s highly correlated world there is little diversification between equity classes. Therefore, including other asset classes, like fixed income which provides a return of capital function with an income stream, can reduce portfolio volatility. Lower volatility portfolios outperform over the long term by reducing the emotional mistakes caused by large portfolio swings.

3) You can’t “buy low” if you don’t “sell high”

Most investors do fairly well at “buying,” but stink at “selling.” The reason is purely emotional, which is driven primarily by “greed” and “fear.” Like pruning and weeding a garden; a solid discipline of regularly taking profits, selling laggards and rebalancing the allocation leads to a healthier portfolio over time.

4) No investment discipline works all the time – Sticking to a discipline works always.

Like everything in life, investment styles cycle. There are times when growth outperforms value, or international is the place to be, but then it changes. The problem is that by the time investors realize what is working they are late rotating into it. This is why the truly great investors stick to their discipline in good times and bad. Over the long term – sticking to what you know, and understand, will perform better than continually jumping from the “frying pan into the fire.”

5) Losing capital is destructive. Missing an opportunity is not.

As any good poker player knows – once you run out of chips you are out of the game. This is why knowing both “when” and “how much” to bet is critical to winning the game. The problem for most investors is that they are consistently betting “all in all of the time.” as they maintain an unhealthy level of the“fear of missing out.” The reality is that opportunities to invest in the market come along as often as taxi cabs in New York City. However, trying to make up lost capital by not paying attention to the risk is a much more difficult thing to do.

6) Your most valuable, and irreplaceable, commodity is “time.”

Since the turn of the century investors have recovered, theoretically, from two massive bear market corrections. It took 14- years for investors to get back to where they were in 2000 on an inflation-adjusted total return basis. Furthermore, despite the bullish advance from the 2009 lows, the compounded annual total return for the last 18-years remains below 3%.

The problem is that the one commodity which has been lost, and can never be recovered, is “time.” For investors getting back to even is not an investment strategy. We are all “savers” that have a limited amount of time within which to save money for our retirement. If you were 18 years from retirement in 2000 – you are now staring it in the face with a large shortfall between the promised 8% annualized return rate and reality. Do not discount the value of “time” in your investment strategy.

7) Don’t mistake a “cyclical trend” as an “infinite direction”

There is an old Wall Street axiom that says the “trend is your friend.”  Investors always tend to extrapolate the current trend into infinity. In 2007, the markets were expected to continue to grow as investors piled into the market top. In late 2008, individuals were convinced that the market was going to zero. Extremes are never the case.

It is important to remember that the “trend is your friend” as long as you are paying attention to, and respecting its direction. Get on the wrong side of the trend and it can become your worst enemy.

8) If you think you have it figured out – sell everything.

Individuals go to college to become doctors, lawyers, and even circus clowns. Yet, every day, individuals pile into one of the most complicated games on the planet with their hard earned savings with little, or no, education at all.

For most individuals, when the markets are rising, their success breeds confidence. The longer the market rises; the more individuals attribute their success to their own skill. The reality is that a rising market covers up the multitude of investment mistakes that individuals make by taking on excessive risk, poor asset selection or weak management skills.  These errors are revealed by the forthcoming correction.

9) Being a contrarian is tough, lonely and generally right.

Howard Marks once wrote that:

“Resisting – and thereby achieving success as a contrarian – isn’t easy. Things combine to make it difficult; including natural herd tendencies and the pain imposed by being out of step, since momentum invariably makes pro-cyclical actions look correct for a while. (That’s why it’s essential to remember that ‘being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.’)

Given the uncertain nature of the future, and thus the difficulty of being confident your position is the right one – especially as price moves against you – it’s challenging to be a lonely contrarian.”

The best investments are generally made when going against the herd. Selling to the “greedy” and buying from the “fearful” are extremely difficult things to do without a very strong investment discipline, management protocol, and intestinal fortitude. For most investors, the reality is that they are inundated by “media chatter” which keeps them from making logical and intelligent investment decisions regarding their money which, unfortunately, leads to bad outcomes.

10) Benchmarking performance only benefits Wall Street

The best thing you can do for your portfolio is to quit benchmarking it against a random market index that has absolutely nothing to do with your goals, risk tolerance or time horizon.

Comparison in the financial arena is the main reason clients have trouble patiently sitting on their hands, letting whatever process they are comfortable with work for them. They get waylaid by some comparison along the way and lose their focus. If you tell a client that they made 12% on their account, they are very pleased. If you subsequently inform them that ‘everyone else’ made 14%, you have made them upset. The whole financial services industry, as it is constructed now, is predicated on making people upset so they will move their money around in a frenzy. Money in motion creates fees and commissions. The creation of more and more benchmarks and style boxes is nothing more than the creation of more things to COMPARE to, allowing clients to stay in a perpetual state of outrage.

The only benchmark that matters to you is the annual return that is specifically required to obtain your retirement goal in the future. If that rate is 4% then trying to obtain 6% more than doubles the risk you have to take to achieve that return. The end result is that by taking on more risk than is necessary will put your further away from your goal than you intended when something inevitably goes wrong.

It’s all about the risk

Most people are in denial about uncertainty. They assume they’re lucky, and that the unpredictable can be reliably forecasted. This keeps business brisk for palm readers, psychics, and stockbrokers, but it’s a terrible way to deal with uncertainty.

It should be obvious that an honest assessment of uncertainty leads to better decisions. It may seem contradictory, embracing uncertainty reduces risk while denial increases it. Another benefit of “acknowledged uncertainty” is it keeps you honest. A healthy respect for uncertainty, and a focus on probability, drives you never to be satisfied with your conclusions. It keeps you moving forward to seek out more information, to question conventional thinking and to continually refine your judgments and understanding that difference between certainty and likelihood can make all the difference.

The reality is that we can’t control outcomes; the most we can do is influence the probability of certain outcomes which is why the day to day management of risks and investing based on probabilities, rather than possibilities, is important not only to capital preservation but to investment success over time.

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

Venezuelan Government Seizes Kellogg’s Factory After Closure: A Recipe For Failure

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The socialist Venezuelan government has seized a closed Kellogg’s factory and decided to make the perfect storm for failure out of their theft.  The government has handed control of the factory over to the workers who will attempt to continue to produce Kellogg’s products.

Hold your laughter, because this actually happened. According to the BBC, the move comes as Kellogg’s announced it was pulling out of the dystopian communist country because of the worsening economic situation brought on by the disturbing socialist policies of President Nicolas Maduro.

Maduro, who has previously accused the United States of waging economic war against his government, and called the factory closure “absolutely unconstitutional and illegal,” even though his policies are the ones which caused the closure of the factory to begin with.

But in the meantime, Maduro has decided to hand the factory over to workerswho he thinks will continue production.  Interesting, considering most people won’t work long without being paid, and if Kellogg’s cannot find supplies to produce their infamous cereals, it’s unlikely the workers will be successful.  But socialists don’t think much more than one second about any decision anyway.

Venezuela’s battered economy has been hit by falling oil revenue and the plummeting value of its currency, the bolivar. It also has one of the highest rates of inflation in the world. Kellogg is simply the latest multinational company to close or heavily scale back operations in Venezuela, citing strict currency controls, a lack of raw materials and soaring inflation.

Kellogg’s said it hoped to return to Venezuela in the future and warned the Venezuelan government against sales of its brands “without the expressed authorization of the Kellogg Company.”

But the company probably doesn’t have to worry much.

 Worker-run businesses are the biggest recipe for failure in economics that has likely ever existed.

Just ask Venezuela how that’s working out…

For example, in 2016, Venezuela’s government took over a plant belonging to US-based hygiene products manufacturer Kimberly-Clark after it announced it was stopping operations because it could not obtain raw materials. The Texas-based firm recently requested the start of arbitration proceedings against Venezuela at the World Bank. The Texas-based company said in a statement:

“If the Venezuelan government takes control of Kimberly-Clark facilities and operations, it will be responsible for the well-being of the workers and the physical asset, equipment and machinery in the facilities going forward.”

Responsibility is a word socialists cannot readily define, however. And you would think with all this seizure of private businesses, Venezuela wouldn’t have food and toilet paper shortages if these policies were successful. But that’s the problem.  There is little success in Marxist ideals and yet they still insist on blaming capitalism.

“I would rather be subjected to the few failures of capitalism than the few successes of socialism.” -Unknown

via RSS https://ift.tt/2k7ct5z Tyler Durden

Reason Nominated for a Record 30 Southern California Journalism Awards

The Greater Los Angeles Press Club, whose coverage area reaches from Santa Barbara in the north to the border fencing down south, has announced finalists for its 60th annual Southern California Journalism Awards. Reason, your multipronged defender/explorer of “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has broken our previous record with 30 nominations.

The categories include Best Group Blog and Best Website of a traditional news organization (we’re up against The Hollywood Reporter, KCET, KPCC, and Variety), plus the following cross-platform nominations:

Best Humor/Satire Writing: Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton, for “Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition

Best Obituary/Appreciation, Politics/Business/Arts: Brian Doherty, for “Tom Petty, RIP

Best Activism Journalism: David Bier, for “Why the Wall Won’t Work

Best Health Journalism: Eric Boehm, for “A Baby Dies in Virginia

Best National Political/Government Reporting: Robert W. Poole Jr., for “Your Flight Is Delayed,” and Jesse Walker, for “The Indestructible Idea of the Basic Income

Best Educational Reporting: Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt, for “The Fragile Generation

Best Environmental Reporting: Shawn Regan, for “How Capitalism Saved the Bees

Best Minority/Immigration Reporting (print): Joe Coon, for “Bringing Bandar Home

Best Commentary on TV/Film: Zach Weissmueller, for “What HBO’s Veep Gets Right About Politics

Best Criticism on Books/Art/Architecture/Design: Brian Doherty, for “The Great James Buchanan Conspiracy

Best Criticism on Food/Culture: Peter Suderman, for “Government Almost Killed the Cocktail

Reason also pulled down a bunch of nominations in the Magazine category, including:

Best Investigative Story: Elizabeth Nolan Brown, for “American Sex Police

Best Columnist: Virginia Postrel (for “Love Your Homemade Quilt? Thank Capitalism,” “Umbrellas: The iPhones of the Victorian Age,” and “When Buying Life Insurance Was Deemed Immoral“); Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (for “One Woman’s Adventures in Gender Crossing and Civil Disobedience,” “The Myth of Technological Unemployment,” and “An Economist Goes to Shanghai“); and J.D. Tuccille (for “Your Handy Guide to Camping in Forbidden Places,” “RIP Jerome Tuccille, Author of It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand,” and “Where Radar Cameras Fear To Tread“)

Best Feature, Business/Government (over 1,000 words): Mike Riggs, for “How Washington Lost the War on Muscle

Best Entertainment News or Feature: Peter Suderman, for “Young Men Are Playing Video Games Instead of Getting Jobs. That’s OK. (For Now.)

We also have several nominations in the Television category, including:

Best Entertainment News or Feature: Meredith Bragg, for “Chinese Dissident Ai Weiwei Explores the Tragedy of the Refugee Crisis

Best Non-Entertainment Personality Profile/Interview: Justin Monticello, Alex Manning, and Zach Weissmueller, for “This Self-Taught Programmer Is Bringing Transparency to California Politics

Best Documentary Short (under 25 minutes): Paul Detrick and Alex Manning, for “Insane Clown Posse: ‘We’re First Amendment Warriors’ for Juggalo Nation

We received multiple Online nominations as well:

Best News Article, Government/Politics: Eric Boehm, for “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License

Best Investigative Article: C.J. Ciaramella and Lauren Krisai, for “How Florida Entraps Pain Patients, Forces Them to Snitch, Then Locks Them Up for Decades

Best Lifestyle Feature: Mike Riggs, for “Medical Researchers Are Steps From Legalizing Ecstasy. Here’s How They Did It

Best Columnist: Scott Shackford, for “Chelsea Manning Showed Us the Consequences of War, and We Threw Her in Prison,” “People Who Called Snowden a Traitor Shocked to Learn About All This Domestic Surveillance,” and “The Government is Here to Make Sure Your Fidget Spinner Doesn’t Kill Everybody

Best Political Commentary, National: Matt Welch, for “The Neoliberal Era Is Over

Best Sports Commentary: Eric Boehm, for “Atlanta Braves’ New Stadium Is a Disaster for Taxpayers and Fans

Best Entertainment and Celebrity News: Elizabeth Nolan Brown, for “Hot Girls Wanted: Exploiting Sex Workers in the Name of Exposing Porn Exploitation?

Winners will be announced June 24; last year we won five gold medals after receiving 28 nominations.

Reason could not produce this work, let alone achieve such recognition, without your active support, whether through donations, subscriptions, comments, retweets, or leaving a stealth copy on the table at the dentist’s office. So thank you!

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2wPZe2t
via IFTTT

Inspector General Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Email Probe, Refers To Criminal Prosecutor

As we reported earlier Thursday, a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice’s internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week’s end, and will have a “few days” to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks. –WSJ

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that “IG Horowitz has found “reasonable grounds” for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ’s handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution.”

Sperry also noted on Twitter that the FBI and DOJ had been targeting former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn before his December 2016 phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, stemming from photos of Flynn at a December 2015 Moscow event with Vladimir Putin (and Jill Stein).

Who is Huber?

As we reported in March, Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber – Utah’s top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse

While Huber’s appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable – as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March “the IG’s office does not have authority to compel witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel investigation,”

Sessions’ pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ’s roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator.

***

Who is Horowitz?

In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think the upcoming OIG report is just going to be “all part of the show” – take pause; there’s a good chance this is an actual happening, so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved. 

In short – Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG’s powers – and didn’t get them back until Trump took office.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 – after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG’s investigative powers in 2011 during the “Fast and Furious” scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright. 

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war

In March of 2015, Horowitz’s office prepared a report for Congress  titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations. It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress – illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG’s investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 – the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 – signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress. 

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.

TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG’s new and restored powers. And while the public won’t get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure: 

Horowitz’s efforts to roll back Eric Holder’s restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General’s ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page as well. Click here and keep scrolling for that and more insight into what’s going on behind the scenes. 

Here’s a preview: 

 

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on “requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public.” 

The initial focus ranged from the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife’s campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases.

Courtesy @DaveNYviii

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to “actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” 

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ’s failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the “Trump-Russia” dossier created by Fusion GPS. 

On September 26, 2017, The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. 

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together – as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks.

DOJ Flowchart, Courtesy TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii)

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment. 

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation. 

After the report’s completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding “Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded).” 

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General: 

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2k5ZwbZ Tyler Durden

Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low

StorkBabyJamesSteidlDreamstimeThe U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a 40-year low, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The 2017 provisional estimate of fertility for the entire U.S. indicates about 3.85 million births in 2017 and a total fertility rate of about 1.76 births per woman,” the pro-natalist Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes. “These are low numbers: births were as high as 4.31 million in 2007, and the total fertility rate was 2.08 kids back then.” The last time fertility in the U.S. fell this low was in the 1970s, when it reached a nadir of 1.74 births per woman in 1976.

The decline in the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) mirrors a global trend. The world TFR fell from 5.1 children per woman in 1964 to 2.4 in 2016. The U.S. rate is now about the same as TFRs in most European countries. It is well below the population replacement TFR, which is generally calculated as 2.1 children per woman. If the current TFR is sustained and immigration is halted, U.S. population will begin to fall later in this century.

Between 2008 and 2016, the IFS reports, the fertility rate dropped from 2.15 to 1.89 among black women, from 2.85 to 2.1 among Hispanic women, and from 1.95 to 1.72 among non-Hispanic white women.

FallingFertilityIFS

The continuing decline in the birth rate seems “inconsistent with the growing number of women of childbearing age,” The New York Times notes. “In 2017, women had nearly 500,000 fewer babies than in 2007, despite the fact that there were an estimated 7 percent more women in their prime childbearing years of 20 to 39.”

Back in 2014, I pointed out the strong correlation between women pursuing higher education and falling fertility rates. American women today earn around 60 percent of all college degrees. By age 31, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, almost 36 percent of women hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 28 percent of men. The Census Bureau notes that women with college degrees tend to have fewer children. That’s why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.

Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That’s a good thing.

Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2ItaJ17
via IFTTT

The Housing ATM Is Back (And It Won’t Work Any Better This Time)

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

It makes little sense to refi at these rising rates. But here we are.

Refis at 8-Year Lows

With mortgage rates rising, one would expect refi activity to slow. And it has: Refi Applications are at an 8-Year Low.

But why is there any refi activity all at all?

In September 2017 the MND mortgage rate rate was 3.85%. In June 2016, the MND rate was 3.43%.

It makes little sense to refi at 4.70% when one could have done it less than two years ago a point and a quarter lower.

At these rates, refi activity should be in the low single digits. Yet, 36% of mortgage applications are refis.

Housing ATMs

Are people pulling money out of their houses to pay bills?

That’s how it appears, as Cash-Out Mortgage Refis are Back.

What’s Going On?

  1. People feel wealthy again and are willing to blow it on consumption

  2. People pulling money out to invest in stocks or Bitcoin

  3. People are further and further in debt and need to pull out cash to pay the bills

I suspect point number three is the primary reason.

Regardless, releveraging is as wrong now as it was in 2007. Totally wrong.

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

Stocks Tumble As Trump “Doubts China Trade Talks Will Be Successful”

Having seemingly implied that China was behind the North Korean shenanigans regarding the US summit, President Trump said that he “doubts the China trade talks will be successful” and took the shine off stocks…

Stocks slid lower…

But the dollar and bond yields were unimpressed for now.

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

The “World’s Most Bearish Hedge Fund Manager” Makes A Major Change To His Portfolio

Last March, after the worst year in Horseman Capital’s history when the fund lost -24% of its AUM, on par with its performance in 2009, fund CIO Russell Clark capitulated on what until then was the world’s most bearish portfolio, sending its net exposure from -100% to just -12%. Clark also revealed that instead of being outright short equities, as he mostly had been for years, he would split his bullish exposure by shifting long into Emerging Markets, while staying short Developed markets.

What I find interesting, is that US markets have moved up on the promise of reform, even though they look fully valued in my view. China and India we have already had reform take place, and the stocks are not priced for these benefits. Plainly the choice is obvious for me. Long emerging markets, short developed markets is the strategy for the fund.

The decision to rotate into EMs, which at the time was certainly contrarian, may have helped Horseman Global, – which back then was struggling with an avalanche of redemptions – survive, because while it failed to generate spectacular gains, it still managed to turn around the 2016 rout and return 2.3%. The fund’s winning ways continued in 2018, when after the first 4 months, the fund – which we previously dubbed “the world’s most bearish hedge fund” due to its chronic net short bias – was up just over 5%, even as Clark maintained his unprecedented net short book into its 6th year.

Fast forward to today, when after several bland monthly letters to investors in which as Russel Clark himself admitted he “refrained from talking about the market in detail”, the widely followed contrarian is out with a new missive which may presage another key inflection point in the market.

According to Clark, recent developments in China may have finally revealed the key that “unlocks” the QE trap, which would then permit the gradual rise in rates without catastrophic consequences, however this combination of slightly higher short-term interest rates and higher commodity prices “seems to be slowing growth.” This, combined with the general long equities and short bond position of the investing community, strikes Clark as dangerous.

So, one year after dramatically uprooting and overhauling his entire portfolio, Clark is making another major change to his book once again, and as he explains, in the past two months, he has “reduced shorts that work well with higher interest rates, such as staples, REITs, and telecom stocks.” Instead, Horseman has shifted bearishly into the economic cycle-sensitive short book, “namely semiconductor stocks and financials.”

So what about his net exposure? Here Clark says that while he is “tempted” to cut the long book, he has instead “maintained this exposure because, if growth heads south, the chance of central bank intervention in either China or the US rises.” Indeed it does as April 17 showed, when the PBOC unexpectedly cut RRR rates, launching the current surge in both the US Dollar and Treasury yields.

So with the threat of central bank intervention in minds, Clark writes that “Chinese intervention may well be to be cut more capacity and raise commodity prices higher” while the US may back away from further rate increases, with both moves “bullish for commodities.” As a result, the Horseman “long book is really a hedge against central bank policy supporting the economic and market cycle.

Curiously, anticipating that LPs and investors in the fund may be “fickle” as Clark begins another major portfolio rotation, he writes that he is closing the fund to new investors from June 1, and says there are several reasons for the move: “I understand my style of investing better. I have a natural tendency to attack consensus positions. And, by definition, when I do well, everyone else does badly, and vice versa. The best investors for me are those who understand this, and therefore, by definition, these are the investors that are in the fund now after a period of average returns.”

Which brings us to the punchline: on the (roughly) one year anniversary of his last major portfolio rotation, this is what the Horseman Global CIO will be doing now:

For the last year or so I have characterised the fund as long emerging markets and short developed markets. This is not correct anymore. We are short three of the four largest emerging market stocks. We have also started to buy bonds again: 30-year Japanese Government Bonds a couple of months ago, and 10-year treasuries at the beginning of May.

Considering the recent plunge in EMs, Clark may have timed his rotation perfectly

And since this latest portfolio shift brings Horseman back to its original, bearish posture, Clark’s poetic conclusion is spot ont:

Markets are much like life, if you keep going long enough you end up back in the same spot. Coming back a full circle, your fund is once again long bonds (and commodities), short equities.

Clarke’s full letter to investors is below:

Your fund lost 2% last month, all from the currency book. Losses in the short book balanced gains in the long book.

The last two newsletters have largely refrained from talking about the market in detail. I believe quantitative easing (“QE”) is a disastrous policy, and the example from Japan of it being an extremely hard policy to escape still seems true to me. However, the Chinese policy of forcing capacity cuts and raising interest rates, seemed to offer a way out of the QE trap. Certainly, since China enacted its policy change, the Federal Reserve has managed to reverse far more of its QE policies than the Japanese ever managed. So, I have been conflicted. Maybe the Chinese,
with their unusual hybrid economy, can unlock us from the QE trap that we have fallen into?

Sadly, April saw Chinese government bond yields start to fall significantly. Even as interest rate increases have become more expected, 30-year bonds have stayed becalmed, and in some cases are starting to move lower. The combination of slightly higher short-term interest rates and higher commodity prices seems to be slowing growth. This, combined with the general long equities and short bond position of the investing community, strikes me as dangerous.

So, April and early May have seen me reduce shorts that work well with higher interest rates, such as staples, REITs, and telecom stocks. We have used the space created to increase our economic cycle sensitive short book, namely semiconductor stocks and financials. The gross short book has shrunk, but when beta adjusted it is probably flat. I am tempted to cut the long book, but have maintained this exposure because, if growth heads south, the chance of central bank intervention in either China or the US rises. Chinese intervention may well be to be cut more capacity and raise commodity prices higher. The US may back away from further rate increases. Both seem bullish for commodities. The long book is really a hedge against central bank policy supporting the economic and market cycle.

I have recommended to the fund Directors that they close the fund to new investors from June 1. From that point on, we will only accept investments from new investors that began their due diligence before June 1.

I suspect that many readers of the newsletter will wonder why I want to close the fund to new investors. Whilst returns have improved, and we have seen some inflows, neither has been extreme. There are several reasons. I understand my style of investing better. I have a natural tendency to attack consensus positions. And, by definition, when I do well, everyone else does badly, and vice versa.

The best investors for me are those who understand this, and therefore, by definition, these are the investors that are in the fund now after a period of average returns. I obviously struggle at inflection points, so by not having the distraction of new prospects I would hope to manage inflection points better.

For the last year or so I have characterized the fund as long emerging markets and short developed markets. This is not correct anymore. We are short three of the four largest emerging market stocks. We have also started to buy bonds again: 30-year Japanese Government Bonds a couple of months ago, and 10-year treasuries at the beginning of May. Markets are much like life, if you keep going long enough you end up back in the same spot. Coming back a full circle, your fund is once again long bonds (and commodities), short equities.

 

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

The Regulations That Could Push Oil Up To $90

Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

International regulations on the fuels used in shipping could tighten the oil market and push prices up to $90 per barrel in the next two years.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has new rules coming into effect at the start of 2020 requiring shipowners to dramatically lower the concentration of sulfur used in their fuels.

Ships plying the world’s oceans tend to use heavy fuel oil, a bottom-of-the-barrel fuel that is especially dirty. The IMO regulations are targeting this fuel because of its high sulfur content. Current rules allow sulfur concentrations of 3.5 percent, but by 2020 ships must slash that to just 0.5 percent. “Effectively, bunker fuel is the last refuge for sulphur, which has been driven out of most other oil products,” the IEA wrote earlier this year in its Oil 2018 report.

Shipowners have several options to achieve this goal, and there probably won’t be a single approach. They could install scrubbers to remove sulfur from the fuel, switch to low-sulfur fuels, or switch to LNG. Scrubbers are thought to be costly, although some shipowners see the payback period as worth it. LNG is also an expensive route.

But a lot of shipowners will switch over to lower-sulfur fuels such as gasoil, a distillate similar to diesel. The IEA says that by 2020, demand for gasoil will shoot up to 1.74 million barrels per day (mb/d), an increase of over 1 mb/d relative to 2018. That will displace the heavy fuel oil that is currently widespread. The IEA says that high-sulfur fuel oil demand will crater from 3.2 mb/d in 2019 to just 1.3 mb/d in 2020.

The switchover will have enormous ramifications for the oil market. The shipping industry represents about 5 percent of the global oil market, using about 5 million barrels of oil per day. Swapping out one form of oil for others will have ripple effects across the refining industry, awarding some and dealing losses to others.

Refiners processing middle distillates – diesel and gasoil – will see a windfall. Meanwhile, refiners that churn out heavy fuel oil will be left with surplus product on their hands.

More specifically, complex refineries can use different types of crude to produce gasoil, often without being stuck with heavy fuel oil as a byproduct. On the other hand, smaller more simple refineries are unable to do that with ease, and “some simple refineries may be forced to close or to upgrade,” according to the IEA.

“We foresee a scramble for middle distillates that will drive crack spreads higher and drag oil prices with it,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note.

The investment bank said that Brent crude prices could jump to $90 per barrel, aided by the IMO regulations and the rush to secure compliant fuel. “The last period of severe middle distillate tightness occurred in late-2007/early-2008 and arguably was the critical factor that drove up Brent prices in that period,” Morgan Stanley wrote.

Already, stocks of middle distillates have declined below the five-year average in Europe, the U.S. and Asia. “The additional gasoil needed in 2020 is likely to trigger a spike in diesel prices. In our forecast, we assume an increase of 20 percent to 30 percent in that year,” the IEA said.

The intriguing conclusion from this scenario is that U.S. shale can’t be the solution. The flood of oil coming from the Permian basin is light and sweet, which tends to be transformed into gasoline, and is not suited for the production of middle distillates. Medium and heavy blends are more preferable for the distillates needed for maritime fuels, but those barrels are being held off of the market right now by the OPEC cuts.

“We expect the crude oil market to remain under-supplied and inventories to continue to draw,” the bank said. “This will likely underpin prices.”

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

Brazilian Real Rout Returns Despite Hawkish Central Bank ‘Hold’

Brazil’s central bank (BCB) surprised the market by foregoing a final rate cut overnight in what seemed like a hawkish effort to stem the tide of collapse in its currency. For a few brief minutes it worked… but the Real is no collapsing lower again to more than 3.70/usd.

 

As Goldman Sachs noted, the BCB decision went against a broad market consensus expecting a final 25bp rate cut: only 2 of the 39 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expected the Copom to leave the policy rate unchanged at 6.50%. The forward guidance hardened, now indicating the end of the long easing cycle.

This was one of the few instances where a central bank surprises a heavy market consensus and, yet, is likely to be applauded for it and gain credibility. The reason analysts were expecting a rate cut was not because in their assessment of the macro fundamentals and overall evolution of the balance of domestic and external risks further easing would be warranted, but simply because the central bank guidance from the previous meeting, reiterated in the Quarterly Inflation Report, clearly suggested so, and in recent weeks, amidst already clear currency pressures, central bank officials did not publicly abandon such guidance.

Overall, while the Copom communication with the market may have been imperfect, the decision to hold is, in our assessment, perfectly justified by the recent developments in external financial markets and the ongoing depreciation pressure on the BRL. We expect the Copom to leave the policy rate unchanged at 6.50% for the foreseeable future and expect the next move to be a hike.

However, it didn’t and isn’t and the Real is now down almost 20% since the end of January…

And don’t forget, the Brazilian Real is what Bank of America called the best indicator of imminent emerging market turmoil

And in fact, it is LatAm FX that is getting crushed – now at its weakest level ever relative to the broad EM FX…

And this weakness is continuing even as the region’s biggest exports – commodities – are rising.

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