Tag: news

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

The biggest news this past week was Janet Yellen's first post-FOMC meeting speech and press conference as the Federal Reserve Chairwoman.  While I have the utmost respect for her accomplishments, every time I hear her speak all I can think of is my white haired, 75-year old grandmother baking cookies in her kitchen.  This week's "Things To Ponder" covers several disparate takes on what she said, didn't say and the direction of the Federal Reserve from here.

In order to give these views context, I have included Yellen's post-meeting news conference.  This is best viewed with a glass of milk and some warm, fresh chocolate-chip cookies…."just like Grandma used to make."

 

Quote Of The Day:  "Bull Markets Are Just Like Sex, It Feels Best Just Before It Ends."  by Barton Biggs

1) Dropping The 6.5% Unemployment Target by Howard Gold via MarketWatch

I have written many times in the past, most recently here, that the 6.5% unemployment target for the Federal Reserve was not a good measure of the true state of employment in the U.S.  Specifically I stated:

"The difference between today, and 1978, is that in 1978 the LFPR was on the rise versus a sharp decline today.  However, as I stated previously in 'Fed's Economic Projections – Myth vs Reality' this leaves the Federal Reserve in a bit of a predicament.

 

'The problem that the Fed will eventually face, with respect to their monetary policy decisions, is that effectively the economy could be running at 'full rates' of employment but with a very large pool of individuals excluded from the labor force.  Of course, this also explains the continued rise in the number of individuals claiming disability and participating in the nutritional assistance programs.   While the Fed could very well achieve its goal of fostering a 'full employment' rate of 6.5%, it certainly does not mean that 93.5% of working age Americans will be gainfully employed.  It could well just be a victory in name only"

 

This is particularly the case when roughly 1 out of 3 people are no longer counted as part of the work force, 1-out-of-3 individuals are dependent on some sort of social support program, and over 17% of personal incomes are comprised of government transfers."

Howard points to the Federal Open Market Committee dropping its 6.5% unemployment rate threshold for raising the federal funds rate, a target originally set in December 2012.

"Instead it would look at some 'qualitative' measures, 'including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments,' the FOMC’s statement said."

 

This move shouldn’t have surprised anyone. The official unemployment rate was 6.7% in February and keeping that 6.5% target would have tied the Fed’s hands before it’s even finished tapering.

 

Yellen must deal with an economy that’s slowly recovering, but leaving a lot of people behind."

2) Yellen And The Fed Go Dark by Matthew Klein via Bloomberg

This is a very interesting take on a change in how the Fed presents its decisions and is worth reading in its entirety.

"Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you what will happen with wages, this possible new target tells you almost nothing about when rates will be raised.

 

These developments suggest a desire to turn the clock back to a time when traders had to make bets without Fed hand-holding — even if the Fed still does release its economic projections. A shift toward opacity might be wise. The economy is a complex system that no one fully understands, so it would be foolish to commit to any unbending numerical rule that limits policy makers’ flexibility to react to unforeseen events. That was why former Chairman Alan Greenspan was opposed to formal inflation targets.

 

An additional benefit of opacity is reduced predictability. Scholars have found that financiers take too much risk when they think they know what will happen in the future, so muddying the waters may be just what’s needed to promote a safer financial system."

3) Why The Fed Will Stop Tapering by Peter Schiff

"In reality, the Fed will keep manufacturing excuses as to why rates can't be raised. Whether it's a cold winter or a hot summer, a geopolitical crisis, or an unexpected sell off in stocks or real estate, the Fed will always find a convenient excuse to postpone tightening. That's because it has built an economy completely dependent on zero % interest rates. Even the smallest rate shock could be enough to push us into recession. The Fed knows that, and it is hoping to keep the ugly truth hidden.

 

Although Yellen followed the script on the QE tapering, by decreasing monthly purchases by an additional $10 billion to $55 billion, look for her to abandon her commitment to wind it down to zero just as easily as she has walked back the Fed's commitment to raise rates once unemployment hits 6.5%. Any additional weaknesses in economic data, or dips in stock or real estate prices, will cause the Fed to call a time out on its tapering plan."

4) Rising Risks To Fed's Policy Change By Mohamed El-Erian via CNBC

"Higher uncertainty premiums: The Fed is in the midst of not one but two policy transitions. It is pivoting from reliance on a direct instrument (QE purchases of securities in the marketplace) to an indirect one (forward policy guidance to convince others to devote their balance sheets) — thereby raising effectiveness questions. It is also moving from a readily-observable unemployment threshold to a set of indicators that include qualitative judgments — thereby raising less predictable interpretation questions.

 

Technical market conditions: Given the impressive multi-year rally, it doesn't take much these days to convince equity traders to book profits (and it hasn't taken long for buyers to buy on the dip). Similarly, over-extended front end rates positions can be destabilized in the immediate term even if the Fed is committed to maintaining low rates for long.

 

Reaction to the interest-rate selloff: With a significant part of the economy sensitive to short and intermediate interest rates, including housing, and with the economic recovery yet to broaden sufficiently, it is not surprising that the stock market would be concerned with a sharp selloff in the shorter-dated rates.

 

What about the longer-term?

 

Here, much depends on your assessment of the first factor — namely, Fed policy effectiveness during its policy transition. Unfortunately, there are no tested models, policy playbooks or historical data to confidently guide investors. What is clear, however, is that they will require quite a bit of evidence of ineffectiveness before abandoning their faith in an institution that has significantly supported markets in recent years."

5) Inside The Madness Of The Stock Market by Jason Zweig

Jason's articles are always worth reading and this is no exception.  The "madness of crowds" is always relevant and prevalent.  With the financial markets tied to the Federal Reserve, like a "fetus to its mother," these words of wisdom are worth remembering.

"In a guest essay published in the New York Times on Oct. 29, 1989, called 'Fear of a Crash Caused the Crash,' future Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller described a survey he had done of 101 market professionals the Monday and Tuesday after the tumble. Asked whether the drop was driven by 'a change in the stock market fundamentals' or 'psychology and emotion,' only 19% cited fundamentals; 77% blamed psychology and emotion. Shiller and his colleague William Feltus also asked the professionals if they thought the latest drop could turn into a replay of the 1987 crash; 35% thought it could, while 41% thought other investors thought so.

So, when KAL poked fun at traders overreacting to what others say, he was right on the money.

 

To this day, says KAL, brokers buying copies of the cartoon (featured above) 'inevitably' tell him, 'It was so funny because it was so true.'"

EXTRA!  The Mysterious Disappearance Of Aircraft Since 1948 via Zero Hedge

The ongoing search for Malaysian Airline Flight 370 has the conspiracy world abuzz with theories ranging from terrorism, government experiments, black holes to alien abduction.  However, what is interesting is that this is not the first time a plane has mysteriously disappeared.  The following info graphic details the last known position of lost large aircraft since 1948. 

Have a great weekend.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jiq7u2 Tyler Durden

Quad-witching only added to an extremely volatile week as the entire bond, stock, FX complex pumped and dumped on the basis of whether a "considerable period" was really six months and whether "quite some time" was more or less than six months. The S&P hit record highs early on this morning thanks to a ramp in AUDJPY (but once again bonds didn't blink). All that ended when Europe closed and the Biotech sector's weakness spread, leaving the Nasdaq -1.4% post-FOMC (and all other indices in the red post-FOMC). The range of moves in bonds, FX, commodities, and vol this week were impressive as we noted below…

 

Year-to-date, gold remains the winner (and HY credit the loser)…

 

Year-to-date, the Dow is back in the red and Russell outperforming…

 

To summarise this week's carnage…

• 2Y Yield +8bps – the worst week in 9 months
• 5Y Yield +17bps – the worst week in 7 months
• 30Y Yield unchanged
• 5s30s -16bps – 2nd biggest flattening in 21 months
• 2s10s unchanged
• Silver -5.2% – the worst week in 6 months
• Gold -3.3% – the worst week in 4 months
• Copper ~unchanged (down 4 weeks in a row)
• USD Index +0.83% – best week in 2 months
• EUR -0.82% – broke 6-week win streak
• VIX -2.8vols – 2nd biggest drop in 14 months
• Nasdaq Biotech Index -2.8% – worst week in 5 months
• Financials unchanged on the week

 

When the bottom fell out… as Europe closed…

 

Post-FOMC, all indices are now in the red…

 

With only financials holding any gains…

 

Notably, "most shorted" names have been very weak since the FOMC – even as the broad market is pumped on the heels of financials…

 

On the week 30Y is practically unchanged while 5Y is +17bps!

 

FX markets were also volatile with EUR and JPY weakness (but AUD relatively outperforming)…

 

Gold has been limping higher thelast 2 days but on the week PMs remain under pressure with oil and copper around unch…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

Bonus Chart: The MoMos no likey Ms. Yellen…

 

Bonus Bonus Chart: Biotechs battered…by most in almost 3 years today

U.S. lawmakers have asked Gilead Sciences Inc to explain the $84,000 price tag of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, which is encountering resistance from health insurers and state Medicaid programs – spraking concerns they may have a harder time pricing new medicines.

It seems like the government is basically going after externalities from yet another bubble sector likely bursting the bubble

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1h2YWRe Tyler Durden

First the Fed screws up the “dots” – on one hand telling HFT algos not to worry about rate hikes, on the other saying the FF rate in 2016 will be a scroching 2.25%, then Yellen flubs the “6 month” statement sending stock into a tailspin and Hilsenrath and Liesman explaining in overdrive that she didn’t mean what she said, and now, we learn with the traditional Friday afternoon “shove under the carpet” bomb, that the Fed also flubbed its stress test results. Sounds about par for the world’s most powerful, and clueless, monetary institution.

From the Fed:

The Federal Reserve on Friday issued corrected results for the 2014 Dodd-Frank Act stress test.  For 26 of the 30 firms, the correction led to either no change or at most a 0.1 percentage point change in the firms’ minimum, post-stress tier 1 common capital ratios in the severely adverse scenario.  The change led to a 0.3 percentage point increase at two firms, a 0.2 percentage point decrease at one firm, and a 0.5 percentage point decline at another.  

 

The capital ratios were adjusted to address inconsistencies in the treatment of the fourth quarter 2013 actual capital actions and assumptions about preferred and employee compensation-related issuance over the course of the planning horizon.

 

The attachment reflects the updated minimum tier 1 common capital ratios and the changes from the prior release.  The Federal Reserve will reissue a full result paper on Monday with corrections as they affect all capital ratios.

This is almost as sad, if entertaining, as the Treasury releasing a complete set of TIC data, then hours later admitting it had the goalseek formula set incorrectly, and revising the entire thing.

For those who still care about anything the megalomaniacal, if somewhat confused, central planners at Marriner Eccles have to say, here are the revised results.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jcPBgM Tyler Durden

At 10:27:21 ET, the Nasdaq 100 e-mini futures contract suddenly dropped on extreme activity as someone decided it was an opportune time to dump 3000 contracts or around $220 million notional. As Nanex notes, the ETF – QQQ – also collapsed (with over 1200 trades in 1 second) as bids and offers were crossed and markets went flash-crashy for a few tenths of a second. The questions is – who was it? Waddell & Reed?

 

Via Nanex,

1. QQQ Trades (cicles) and NBBO shaded red when crossed (bid > ask), yellow when locked (bid = ask), or gray when normal (bid < ask).
Note how the trades print way ahead of quotes. Chart shows about 140 milliseconds of time.

---

---

2. June 2014 Nasdaq 100 (NQ) Futures trades and quote spread.
NQ trades in Chicago – comparing the activity to the QQQ's traded in NY, we see that NQ futures initiated the drop. QQQ's reacted about 4 milliseconds later – the time it takes light to travel between the two cities.

---

---

3. Nasdaq non-ISO trades (dots) and quote spread (shading).
ISO trades can appear slightly ahead of quotes, so we only show non-ISO trades. These trades should appear after quotes: the dots should be on or to the right of the gray shading.

---

---

4. Nasdaq and BATS non-ISO trades and quotes.
We can see that Nasdaq quotes are lagging BATS quotes: the gray shading (Nasdaq quote spread) appears offset to the right of the pink shading (BATS quote spread). This tells us that some of the delay was caused BEFORE Nasdaq quotes reached the SIP. Because Nasdaq trades appear ahead of Nasdaq quotes (and BATS trades), we know direct feeds got that information faster than the SIP did. We call this condition fantaseconds. 

---

---

5. Zooming out on QQQ trades and NBBO.

---

---

6. Zooming out on the June 2014 Nasdaq 100 (NQ) futures trades and quote spread.

---

---

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1imIjUc Tyler Durden

A month ago we presented a must read interview by Swiss Finanz und Wirtschaft with respected value investor Howard Marks, in which, when explaining the motives driving rational investing he summarized simply, “in the end, the devil always wins.” Today, we are happy to bring our readers the following interview with one of our favorite strategists, GMO’s James Montier, in which true to form, Montier packs no punches, and says that the market is now overvalued by 50% to 70%, adding that there is “nothing at all” that has an attractive valuation, and that he sees a “hideous opportunity set.”

Still, despite the clear bubble in stocks, he is unsure what to do since financial repression could last very long with “the average length of periods of financial repression in history is 22 years. We’ve only had five years so far.” Finally on the topic of Japan and Abenomics, “for me, there is too much hope and expectation embedded in Abe, not unlike Obama in 2009: There was so much hope projected into Obama that he could only disappoint.” He did, well… everyone but the 0.001% billionaires. Then again in a world in which there is only hope left, what happens when that too is removed?

From Finanz und Wirtschaft

James Montier is a full-blooded value investor. Pickings are slim these days, though, says the member of the asset allocation team at the Boston-based asset manager GMO. He sees a «hideous opportunity set» for investors, with the S&P-500 being overvalued by 50 to 70 percent.

James, are you able to find anything in today’s financial markets that still has an attractive valuation?

Nothing at all. When we look at the world today, what we see is a hideous opportunity set. And that’s a reflection of the central bank policies around the world. They drive the returns on all assets down to zero, pushing everybody out on the risk curve. So today, nothing is cheap anymore in absolute terms. There are pockets of relative attractiveness, but nothing is cheap or even at fair value. Everything is expensive. As an investor, you have to stick with the best of a bad bunch.

Where are these pockets of relative value?

There are two and a half of them. The half pocket is high quality stocks, companies that have high and stable profitability. But granted: They are nowhere near as compelling as they were even a year ago, so we are slowly selling our high quality positions. We are by the way also reducing our overall equity weight gradually as this year goes on. We have already taken about five points out, and we are at 50 percent now. By the end of the year we’ll probably be at around 39 percent.

And what are the other pockets of value?

European value is still somewhat okay – although there we have increasing concerns about the prospect of deflation in the Eurozone. The breakup risk of the Eurozone has been diminished, the thing seems to be holding together. But that comes with the cost of outright deflation in peripheral countries. That’s a big issue for European equities, not only because deflation increases the discount rate in real terms, but it also increases their debt in real terms. They will owe more in real terms the longer this deflation goes on.

What sectors fall under European value?

A mixture of asset rich sectors: Utilities, oil & gas, some telecom, some industrials. Names we like in that field are Total, BP, Royal Dutch, Telefonica and the like. The problem with all those sectors is that they tend to be debt heavy, which is why the prospect of deflation is such a big issue.

But the European market in general is not cheap anymore?

No. The time to be buying broad European equities was two years ago.

How do you make sure you don’t fall into a value trap with sectors like utilities and telecom?

You can deal with it by demanding a very large margin of safety. I’d argue you don’t get that right now. You could try fundamental analysis, have guys who think they know something about these stocks, and the third is good diversification. You don’t want too much in any one individual name. That’s why we own 150 stocks in our European value portfolio.

What about the mining sector?

They are tricky. We spent a lot of time thinking about mining as well as oil & gas. We’re quite happy with oil & gas. But the mining sector looks expensive to us today. The problem is there is so much supply coming onstream over the coming years, that commodities like iron ore and copper will show significant excess supply even on the assumption of unchanged demand. So we stay away from materials.

What about financials?

We tend to stay away from them, too. You just don’t know what you’re buying. Their balance sheets are built the wrong way around, their assets are liabilities, their liabilities are assets, you just end up scratching your head. So generally, they end up in our too-difficult-to-understand bucket. We own some financials, but only in small size.

And the third pocket of value?

Emerging markets are relatively attractive. But again, despite their underperformance of late, they are not outright cheap.

Every investor seems to hate emerging markets these days, and everyone loves developed markets like the U.S. and Europe. What do you make of that?
This is weird. We see a reverse decoupling theory. For years we heard that emerging markets can decouple from developed markets, and now we hear it the other way round. Neither of these assumptions is true. I don’t think decoupling can happen in either direction. If my assumption is correct that emerging markets are the canary in the coal mine, developed markets will get a hit.

Brazil, China and Russia all trade on single digit P/E right now.

Yes, true. The trouble is that many of these markets basically consist of two things: Financials and resources. Russia is a prime example. And when you look at the credit cycle in many of these markets, they are often quite extended. So they might look cheap, but you have to ask yourself if the earnings they have today will be sustainable. You definitely want to be cautious with financials in emerging markets. We own some assets in markets like Russia or Korea. Gazprom for example, which trades at a P/E of 2, is very cheap. But again, this is not a market to be enthusiastic. Every asset has been affected by the quest for return. I call this the Cinderella curse: Cinderella has already been taken out by Prince Charming, so you are left with the choice between her two ugly stepsisters.

And in order not to be alone, you end up taking out the ugly stepsister?

Yes. That’s what the investing world looks like right now. Not attractive, but there is no good alternative. You have to own some assets. And you just try to get paid as much as possible for taking these risks.

Do you see outright bubbles anywhere?

By some measures, you can say we are in a bubble, for example in U.S. equities. But it doesn’t feel like a mania yet. Today we experience something like a near-rational bubble, based on overconfidence and myopia by investors. It’s a policy-driven, cynical kind of bubble. Not a mania.

You coined the term foie gras rally, where the Fed just shoves liquidity down investor’s throats. How will it all end?

Probably not well. The exit from these policies is going to be extraordinarily difficult to handle. Today’s situation shows parallels with 1994. Then, the Fed had thought that they had done a great job in communicating their policy going forward. But it turned out the markets were not prepared at all, given the fact that it resulted in the Tequila crisis in Mexico. Couple that with expensive markets, and you have a good reason to want to own a reasonable amount of dry powder. You don’t want to be fully invested in this world.

Since the tapering started in December 2013, markets take it rather calmly.

Yes, the ones that suffered were the emerging markets. The S&P-500 just keeps drifting upwards. But I think emerging markets are the canary in the coalmine, the first signal. They had been the beneficiaries of these incredible capital inflows. So the fact that they are the first ones to suffer makes sense. It’s not a huge surprise that stock markets in the U.S. have not reacted, because the bond market has not reacted. The bond market seems to think the tapering will turn out fine. Maybe they’re right. But there is no margin of safety in asset pricing these days. That’s no comfortable position to begin a tightening cycle.

What if there won’t be any exit?

That’s a possibility. The Fed might decide that growth is still too weak and that inflation is not an issue. Then they could keep their policy in place for longer. The history of financial repression shows that it lasts a very long time. The average length of periods of financial repression in history is 22 years. We’ve only had five years so far. That creates a huge dilemma for asset allocators today: How do you build a portfolio with such a binary situation? Either they exit QE, or they don’t. And the assets you want to own in these two scenarios are pretty much inverse. So you either bet on either one of these scenarios, with is kind of uncomfortable for a value-based investor, or you say because we don’t know, the best we can do is build a robust portfolio. A portfolio that is able to survive in all kinds of scenarios.

And what does such a portfolio look like?

If you have continued financial repression, you want a much higher share of equities, because they are the highest performing asset, compared to bonds and cash. If you think financial repression will go on for another 20 years, you need to have equities. For the scenario that the central banks will exit their policies, you will want to own cash, because that’s the only asset that does not get impaired when interest rates rise. So you have two extreme portfolios: One almost fully in equities, the other almost fully in cash. So that’s what we do: We have about 50% in equities, and 50% in dry powder-like assets. That means some cash, some TIPS, and some long/short equity spread trades. But as said, we are reducing the equity part over the course of the year, to build up dry powder.

The pattern in the past years was rather simple: Whenever the S&P 500 corrected by more than 10%, the Fed launched a new program. Could that continue?

You can’t rule it out. That’s part of the Greenspan-Bernanke-Yellen put. Whenever there was a problem, the Fed rescued equity markets. That created a huge moral hazard. Investors have come to believe that the Fed will always make sure that nothing bad happens to equity markets.

Does that explain the buy the dip mentality we see these days? Or is there really so much money left on the sidelines, just waiting to get into equities?

Valuations suggest that most people are fully invested today. I don’t see much evidence of people being overly cautious, but a lot more evidence of people getting exuberant. But bear in mind: Owning a large chunk of cash today hurts your performance. Following a value-based strategy requires you to be patient. We know that patience is a rare treat in human beings, and it is extraordinarily rate among investors. Patience hurts. But it is less foolish to do the right thing for the long term, than try to second guess what will happen in the short term.

What is the fair value of the S&P 500 right now?

Several valuation measures suggest that the S&P is overvalued by 50 to 70%. Every piece of valuation I do says this market is too expensive. The only U.S. equities we currently own are high quality names like Microsoft, Procter & Gamble or Johnson & Johnson.

What’s your view on Japan?

It is far from obvious that prime minister Shinzo Abe will succeed in breaking the mold. He has succeeded in weakening the Yen, but now they increase consumption taxes next month – and thereby run the risk of a re-run of 1998, when Japan killed its own recovery. For me, there is too much hope and expectation embedded in Abe, not unlike Obama in 2009: There was so much hope projected into Obama that he could only disappoint. I’m not sure that Abe will succeed in ending deflation in Japan.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nKNXoF Tyler Durden