Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths

Trump Didn’t Make Small Cap Great Again

By, 08/23/2017

In assessing markets, media still places too much emphasis on the occupant of this building. Photo by JT Sorrell/iStock.

This article touches on politics, a wee bit of a charged subject these days. Please understand our commentary is limited to how political developments influence markets. We favor no politician nor any party.  

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Inflation

Dazed and Confused by Inflation?

By, 08/23/2017


High inflation, like bell bottoms, probably isn’t coming back. (Photo by Tom Kelley Archive/iStock by Getty Images.)

Inflation isn’t running too hot or too cold nowadays—it’s just about right. Depending on your measure—so many to choose from!—US inflation is 1.5% y/y – 2.1% y/y. Nevertheless many folks are hyper-focused on it, fearing a 1970s inflation rerun is imminent with the Fed allegedly printing so much money, unemployment so low or consumer credit galloping. Or, or, or. Whatever the case, they think high inflation will wallop stocks. But US inflation isn’t problematic now and we believe fears of where it will go—as well as the potential impact on stocks—are overwrought.

Inflation is widely misunderstood, even among economists. As Milton Friedman famously described, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon: Too much money chasing too few goods and services. Yet many economists claim inflation depends on how close we are to “full employment”—tying price changes to wages. But there is little clear evidence of such a relationship. The Fed thinks unemployment at 4.5% – 4.8% should spur price gains, yet inflation is slowing alongside 4.3% unemployment.[i] Some Fed people are now questioning their own models and assumptions, which makes sense. As our pal Milton showed in the late 1960s, employers compete for workers with inflation-adjusted compensation. Thus, saying wages drive inflation amounts to saying inflation drives inflation, which isn’t true. The so-called wage-price spiral is a myth.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

(Insert Pun About Volatility and Eclipse Here)

By, 08/21/2017
Ratings174.882353

Obligatory partial eclipse photo. Unlike celestial events, stock markets do not follow set schedules. Photo by Elisabeth Dellinger.

“The past 30 days have been the least volatile of any 30-day period in more than two decades. Only five days during the most recent stretch saw the S&P 500 move by more than 0.5% in either direction, the lowest since the fall of 1995. … The quiet market, measured by the realized volatility—a measure of how much share prices move around—of the S&P 500, has led some to worry that a market storm may be brewing, as peaceful periods in the past have frequently ended in sharp corrections.”

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths, Others

Household Debt: In Depth

By, 08/21/2017
Ratings424.523809

Nearly a decade after the Financial Crisis’s onset, many pundits accuse American consumers of amnesia—forgetting 2008’s lessons and once again racking up excessive debt. A New York Fed report released last week showed US household debt reached $12.8 trillion in Q2—above Q4 2008’s record of $12.7 trillion. But despite widespread warnings about Americans’ forgetfulness, there is nothing troubling about US household debt now. In our view, household debt isn’t at problematic levels today—and it didn’t cause 2008 anyway.

Let’s start by putting household debt in context. Without it, record highs mean nothing—and with it, today’s worries don’t stand up to scrutiny. Mortgage debt balances—the vast majority of household debt—remain below their Q3 2008 peak and aren’t in the limelight right now. Recent fears center on auto loans, credit cards and student debt. Let’s consider each in turn.

Exhibit 1: Q2 2017 US Household Debt Breakdown, in Trillions of Dollars

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit for Q2 2017, as of 8/18/2017.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

Terrorism Is Tragic But Markets Are Resilient

By, 08/18/2017
Ratings174.176471

Life goes on at London’s Borough Market weeks after the terror attack there. Photo by Elisabeth Dellinger.

Last Thursday, 13 people were killed and more than 100 injured as terrorists struck in Barcelona and Cambrils, Spain.  The violence continued Friday as reports confirmed two dead and several more hurt in a stabbing in Turku, Finland. In the grand scheme of things, the loss of life overshadows anything investment-related. Now is the time for the living to pay respects to the deceased, count their blessings and remain vigilant against future attacks. For investors, though, remember that terrorism’s historical impact on capital markets is small—terrorists are unlikely to deter markets for long.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Currencies

Currency Fluctuations Don’t Offset Global Investing’s Benefits

By, 08/18/2017

In the short-term, currency swings can have an outsized impact on global market returns. A strong currency, for example, will dampen returns on stocks outside your country. A weak currency will supercharge them. This leads many investors to either try to time currency moves or outright eschew global investing, thinking such currency fluctuations add huge risk. We disagree. While in the near term there can be dispersion created by currency fluctuations, in the longer term, the swings tend to balance out. Currency movement does not negate the benefits of diversifying globally.

This year to date, US investors with a global portfolio are enjoying a solid year. In US dollars, the MSCI World Index is up 12.0% through August 17. In euro, though, the same MSCI World Index is up just 0.6%.[i] In local currency terms—which strips out currency fluctuations by pricing all constituent stocks in their issuing country’s currency—it is up 8.8%.[ii] The difference is currency movement: The euro has strengthened this year against most major currencies, including rising from $1.05 to $1.17 against the US dollar. That rising euro dampened returns on non-euro-denominated assets. Meanwhile, the dollar has weakened against most major currencies, boosting returns in the process.

If you are in euroland, you might look at this with some frustration right now. If you’re American, you are either pleased or fret it will reverse soon. Whatever your take, we counsel patience—currency fluctuations aren’t a call to action. It is commonplace amid bull markets to see currencies cycle from weak to strong to flattish and back. Trying to time them is a fool’s errand.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Investor Sentiment, Into Perspective

The Profit Prophets Were Too Dour (Again!) in Q2

By, 08/18/2017
Ratings654.130769

While most investors and financial reporters seem fixated on summer White House theatrics, Q2 earnings season is quietly wrapping up—and it was a doozy. With 472 S&P 500 companies reporting as of yesterday, Q2 earnings jumped another 10.3% y/y, confounding the many who expected a big slowdown from Q1’s 13.7%.i Now pundits again warn the party is temporary, and that’s just fine by us—it means expectations remain low and probably easy to beat. As Corporate America continues racking up profits and surprising the naysayers, we believe investors have plenty of reasons to become increasingly optimistic and bid up stocks.

When Q1 earnings soared, the popular narrative held that booming Energy earnings were the biggest driver and only temporary, so investors had better get ready for profits to come back to earth. So when Q2 ended, analysts expected earnings to rise just 6.4% y/y.ii Yet with most results in, 73% of S&P 500 companies have beaten expectations, greater than the average of 68% over the last five years. They’ve also beaten by more than usual—6.1 percentage points versus the 4.1 ppt five-year average.iii Needless to say, this isn’t an Energy-only story. Every sector except Telecom reported growth.

Earnings have long been healthier than advertised. It was just difficult to see because Energy’s extreme moves skewed the headline number—first down, then up. When S&P 500 earnings fell for a year and a half in 2015 and 2016, Energy was the culprit. Only once in those six quarters did earnings outside of Energy fall. That broad strength is simply more visible now that Energy is in the plus column.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths, Interest Rates, Forecasting

Popping Bond Bubble Fears

By, 08/16/2017
Ratings584.181035


These are the kind of bubbles that make us happy. Photo by mikkelwilliam/iStock by Getty Images.

Are bonds in a bubble? One prominent ex-central banker recently said they are, renewing the bubbly bond jitters that have plagued investors off and on since 2013. While none of those fears came true, some are convinced now is the time to be worried and wonder how it will all play out. However, this concern seems overwrought to us: There is little evidence a bond market bubble exists right now.

Bond bubble talk has been around for years, coming back to the fore whenever anyone high-profile talks it up. Enter former Fed head Alan Greenspan, who made waves for the following comments a couple weeks ago:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
MarketMinder Minute, The Global View, Developed Markets

Market Insights: Why Non-US Stocks Likely Take the Lead

By, 08/15/2017
Ratings594.084746

In this Market Insights video, we discuss the eurozone’s broad economic expansion and non-US stocks’ outperformance so far in 2017.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Geopolitics

Stocks’ Calm Isn’t Irrational

By, 08/10/2017
Ratings1024.362745


If you’re watching this, markets are too. Photo by SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

Volatility has been largely absent in recent weeks, much to media’s chagrin. On Tuesday, after President Trump vowed “fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before” in response to further North Korean provocations, the S&P 500 had its biggest drop in a month—a whopping -0.2% decline.[i] When the sabre-rattling escalated further Wednesday when Kim Jong-un threatened Guam, the S&P 500 dropped just -0.04%.[ii] Thursday’s drop was larger at -1.4%, but perhaps still not the sort of freakout most assumed an apparent nuclear standoff might cause.[iii] Some argued the calm is because it’s impossible to price in a potential “extinction event.” Others called it a sign of complacency. But in our view, markets are doing what they always do—pricing in all publicly available information, including risks, and weighing probabilities. While stocks can behave irrationally in the very short term, presuming they’re wrong about something is fraught with peril.

Reading into market movement (or lack thereof) is nothing new—we have an informal running series on the topic, marked by titles beginning with “Searching for Meaning in …” The investing world’s tendency to overthink these things seems to stem from an ingrained belief that certain developments should have predetermined market impacts. That ignores the simple truth that short-term market movement can happen for any or no reason. Is there any logical reason stocks should or shouldn’t have fallen less on Thursday than they did on May 18, when the DoJ named Robert Mueller special counsel for the Russia investigation? Trying to assign inherent expected volatility to current events will do nothing but give you a headache.

None of the things investors are allegedly complacent about this week are new. From the debt ceiling to North Korean threats, all have hogged headlines for weeks, months or longer. Individual developments like the “fire and fury” remark and Guam threat might heighten attention on North Korea, but the Hermit Kingdom has been testing increasingly (allegedly) more powerful missiles most of this year. And yet US and world markets have been largely calm and up. Stocks were also up in 2013, when Kim Jong-un announced he considered the 1953 armistice null and void.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Currencies

Currency Fluctuations Don’t Offset Global Investing’s Benefits

By, 08/18/2017

In the short-term, currency swings can have an outsized impact on global market returns. A strong currency, for example, will dampen returns on stocks outside your country. A weak currency will supercharge them. This leads many investors to either try to time currency moves or outright eschew global investing, thinking such currency fluctuations add huge risk. We disagree. While in the near term there can be dispersion created by currency fluctuations, in the longer term, the swings tend to balance out. Currency movement does not negate the benefits of diversifying globally.

This year to date, US investors with a global portfolio are enjoying a solid year. In US dollars, the MSCI World Index is up 12.0% through August 17. In euro, though, the same MSCI World Index is up just 0.6%.[i] In local currency terms—which strips out currency fluctuations by pricing all constituent stocks in their issuing country’s currency—it is up 8.8%.[ii] The difference is currency movement: The euro has strengthened this year against most major currencies, including rising from $1.05 to $1.17 against the US dollar. That rising euro dampened returns on non-euro-denominated assets. Meanwhile, the dollar has weakened against most major currencies, boosting returns in the process.

If you are in euroland, you might look at this with some frustration right now. If you’re American, you are either pleased or fret it will reverse soon. Whatever your take, we counsel patience—currency fluctuations aren’t a call to action. It is commonplace amid bull markets to see currencies cycle from weak to strong to flattish and back. Trying to time them is a fool’s errand.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Investor Sentiment, Into Perspective

The Profit Prophets Were Too Dour (Again!) in Q2

By, 08/18/2017
Ratings654.130769

While most investors and financial reporters seem fixated on summer White House theatrics, Q2 earnings season is quietly wrapping up—and it was a doozy. With 472 S&P 500 companies reporting as of yesterday, Q2 earnings jumped another 10.3% y/y, confounding the many who expected a big slowdown from Q1’s 13.7%.i Now pundits again warn the party is temporary, and that’s just fine by us—it means expectations remain low and probably easy to beat. As Corporate America continues racking up profits and surprising the naysayers, we believe investors have plenty of reasons to become increasingly optimistic and bid up stocks.

When Q1 earnings soared, the popular narrative held that booming Energy earnings were the biggest driver and only temporary, so investors had better get ready for profits to come back to earth. So when Q2 ended, analysts expected earnings to rise just 6.4% y/y.ii Yet with most results in, 73% of S&P 500 companies have beaten expectations, greater than the average of 68% over the last five years. They’ve also beaten by more than usual—6.1 percentage points versus the 4.1 ppt five-year average.iii Needless to say, this isn’t an Energy-only story. Every sector except Telecom reported growth.

Earnings have long been healthier than advertised. It was just difficult to see because Energy’s extreme moves skewed the headline number—first down, then up. When S&P 500 earnings fell for a year and a half in 2015 and 2016, Energy was the culprit. Only once in those six quarters did earnings outside of Energy fall. That broad strength is simply more visible now that Energy is in the plus column.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths, Interest Rates, Forecasting

Popping Bond Bubble Fears

By, 08/16/2017
Ratings584.181035


These are the kind of bubbles that make us happy. Photo by mikkelwilliam/iStock by Getty Images.

Are bonds in a bubble? One prominent ex-central banker recently said they are, renewing the bubbly bond jitters that have plagued investors off and on since 2013. While none of those fears came true, some are convinced now is the time to be worried and wonder how it will all play out. However, this concern seems overwrought to us: There is little evidence a bond market bubble exists right now.

Bond bubble talk has been around for years, coming back to the fore whenever anyone high-profile talks it up. Enter former Fed head Alan Greenspan, who made waves for the following comments a couple weeks ago:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
MarketMinder Minute, The Global View, Developed Markets

Market Insights: Why Non-US Stocks Likely Take the Lead

By, 08/15/2017
Ratings594.084746

In this Market Insights video, we discuss the eurozone’s broad economic expansion and non-US stocks’ outperformance so far in 2017.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Geopolitics

Stocks’ Calm Isn’t Irrational

By, 08/10/2017
Ratings1024.362745


If you’re watching this, markets are too. Photo by SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

Volatility has been largely absent in recent weeks, much to media’s chagrin. On Tuesday, after President Trump vowed “fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before” in response to further North Korean provocations, the S&P 500 had its biggest drop in a month—a whopping -0.2% decline.[i] When the sabre-rattling escalated further Wednesday when Kim Jong-un threatened Guam, the S&P 500 dropped just -0.04%.[ii] Thursday’s drop was larger at -1.4%, but perhaps still not the sort of freakout most assumed an apparent nuclear standoff might cause.[iii] Some argued the calm is because it’s impossible to price in a potential “extinction event.” Others called it a sign of complacency. But in our view, markets are doing what they always do—pricing in all publicly available information, including risks, and weighing probabilities. While stocks can behave irrationally in the very short term, presuming they’re wrong about something is fraught with peril.

Reading into market movement (or lack thereof) is nothing new—we have an informal running series on the topic, marked by titles beginning with “Searching for Meaning in …” The investing world’s tendency to overthink these things seems to stem from an ingrained belief that certain developments should have predetermined market impacts. That ignores the simple truth that short-term market movement can happen for any or no reason. Is there any logical reason stocks should or shouldn’t have fallen less on Thursday than they did on May 18, when the DoJ named Robert Mueller special counsel for the Russia investigation? Trying to assign inherent expected volatility to current events will do nothing but give you a headache.

None of the things investors are allegedly complacent about this week are new. From the debt ceiling to North Korean threats, all have hogged headlines for weeks, months or longer. Individual developments like the “fire and fury” remark and Guam threat might heighten attention on North Korea, but the Hermit Kingdom has been testing increasingly (allegedly) more powerful missiles most of this year. And yet US and world markets have been largely calm and up. Stocks were also up in 2013, when Kim Jong-un announced he considered the 1953 armistice null and void.

Commentary

Elisabeth Dellinger

This Is Not the Financial Crisis’s 10-Year Anniversary

By, 08/09/2017
Ratings734.547945

Editors’ note: MarketMinder does not recommend individual securities. The below simply represent a broader theme we wish to highlight.

10 years ago today, France’s largest bank froze three hedge funds as subprime-panicked investors fled. Headlines globally are calling this the beginning of the Global Financial Crisis, and at first blush, it certainly has all the trappings. Packaged subprime mortgages, a run on a bank, a liquidity crunch and hard-to-value assets. World stocks slid -7.3% in just 6 trading days when the news broke.[i] But then they bounced. By Halloween, the MSCI World Index was up 6.2% since BNP Day.[ii] That turned out to be world stocks’ peak. US stocks peaked weeks earlier, on October 9. “Why” is always harder to pin down than “what,” but all evidence suggests it’s no coincidence the bear market began as banks started taking the asset writedowns required by FAS 157—the mark-to-market accounting rule—which took effect in November. Subprime and frozen funds are part of the backstory, but in my view, mark-to-market was the catalyst that ultimately destroyed nearly $2 trillion in bank capital. That catalyst no longer exists, as regulators subsequently neutered the rule—something to keep in mind today, as headlines warn a resurgence of allegedly risky debt raises the likelihood of a 2008 repeat.

BNP’s funds weren’t the only ones that imploded in 2007. Two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed in June and July, forcing creditors to liquidate some of the funds’ collateral. As The New York Times reported at the time:

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

Market Insights Podcast: Adviser’s Corner - April 2017

By, 04/28/2017
Ratings393.871795

In this podcast, Fisher Investments' US Private Client Services Vice President K.C. Ellis discusses our clients’ common questions from around the country, including retirement planning, homegrown dividends and dollar cost averaging.

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

Market Insights Podcast: 2017 Market Outlook

By, 03/13/2017
Ratings203.925

In this podcast, Fisher Investments’ Investment Policy Committee discusses their views on capital markets and the economy in 2017.

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Reality Check

Market Insights Podcast: Talking Trump and Trade

By, 02/15/2017
Ratings373.27027

In this podcast, we interview Content Analyst Elisabeth Dellinger on recent talk of protectionism, border taxes and trade.

Research Analysis

Scott Botterman
Into Perspective

2017: The Year of Falling European Political Uncertainty

By, 01/31/2017
Ratings734.171233

Falling uncertainty gave stocks a tailwind in 2016 as investors moved past the Brexit referendum and US presidential election. By year end, persistent skepticism gave way to budding optimism, and the proverbial “animal spirits” stirred. This year, it should be continental Europe’s turn. France, Germany and the Netherlands all hold national elections, while Italy is expected to call snap elections as well. Many fear populist, non-traditional, anti-EU parties on both the far right and left are on the rise and will grab national power. Though these parties are gaining in polls and winning local elections, they still lack the political infrastructure to meaningfully impact policy or make the market’s most-feared scenarios—like another country’s exit from the EU or even the eurozone—a reality. Thus, when the “worst-case” scenario doesn’t come to pass, the likely result is relief.

European politics are factionalized and scattered. In the US, the two-party system dominates, with minor third party movements cropping up occasionally. But in the parliamentary system—used often in Europe and elsewhere around the globe—there is room for more parties and more platforms. Lately, parties with minority support have popped up across Europe, forcing fragile coalitions and muddying the legislature’s ability to take decisive policy action. This feature alone screams more gridlock than widely imagined, reducing legislative risks for stocks.

Italy

Subscribe

Get a weekly roundup of our market insights.Sign up for the MarketMinder email newsletter. Learn more.

What We're Reading

By , The Wall Street Journal, 08/22/2017

MarketMinder's View: Remember when the media hyperventilated about how Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise win last year meant a wave of populism was set to crash onto Continental Europe this year—potentially even leading to the breakup of the eurozone or EU? Well, after elections in the Netherlands and France delivered resounding victories for centrist candidates—and with German Chancellor Angela Merkel holding a comfortable lead before September’s elections—we hear nary a peep involving any “eurozone country + exit” portmanteau anymore. Many anti-EU/euro populists are now backtracking on pledges to hold a eurozone or EU referendum because, as this piece notes, voters just aren’t feeling it anymore: “A survey of 10 EU countries published in June by the Pew Research Center found that Europeans remain critical of the bloc. A median of 46% disapproved of the EU’s handling of its long economic crisis, while 66% disapproved of its management of the refugee crisis. But dissatisfaction didn’t translate into support for leaving. The survey found that, outside the U.K., a median of only 18% wanted to quit the EU, while 77% wanted to stay.” While the political debates rage on, investors should note this is all part of the falling political uncertainty we expected on the Continent this year—and one of the reasons we are bullish toward the eurozone.

By , Reuters, 08/22/2017

MarketMinder's View: Are we about to relive Emerging Markets (EM) Taper Tantrum 2.0 once the ECB begins its long-awaited (but still undetermined) reduction in asset purchases? That is the concern explored here: Without the ECB’s quantitative easing (QE) depressing eurozone yields (and making Emerging Market (EM) assets more attractive), EM currencies will plunge, crippling firms and governments who have to repay euro-denominated debt. This is the exact narrative we heard about Fed/EM taper terror in 2013, which this article argues left “bad memories” by wiping half a trillion off the MSCI EM Index. Scary! But also blown way out of proportion. Taper terror did not cause an EM bear market. Nor did it fundamentally hurt EM economies or stock markets. We guess it’s fair to say it caused a correction, as the MSCI EM fell -15.3% between May 22 (when former Fed head Ben Bernanke first jawboned about tapering) and June 24, but by October the index was above pre-taper-jawbone levels (FactSet, using returns in USD with net dividends.) Moreover, EM stocks rose throughout the actual taper. If they held up fine then, they can do fine now, especially since EMs’ euro-denominated debt is peanuts compared to dollar-denominated debt. In our view, the sooner the ECB gets on with it, the better—it not only removes a small economic headwind, it would likely help sentiment by showing folks monetary policy isn’t propping up global growth.

By , The Wall Street Journal, 08/22/2017

MarketMinder's View: While this primarily discusses a one-day selloff, we highlight it as a friendly reminder that a country’s index classification isn’t innately bullish: “The struggle for Pakistani stocks has come despite leading index provider MSCI’s decision to upgrade the country to an emerging market from a frontier market. The official reclassification into the MSCI Emerging Markets Index took place June 1, which many expected would have been a boon for the country’s stock market. Instead, stocks have fallen, a pattern that Mr. Hashemy [chief economist and director of research at Topline Securities, a Karachi-based brokerage firm] said is similar to what transpired when the U.A.E. and Qatar were upgraded to emerging-market status in May 2014. Both country’s stock markets slumped in the subsequent months before bouncing back.” Color us unsurprised. Index providers typically upgrade countries in response to top-notch stock performance, and as every investment disclosure explains, past performance isn’t indicative of future returns. For more on what happens (or doesn’t) when countries enter or leave various indexes, check out our 6/27/2017 commentary, “Chinese Stocks’ Symbolic Emergence.”

By , Reuters, 08/22/2017

MarketMinder's View: “A vast majority of Japanese firms do not want any further radical monetary easing, even though they believe the central bank’s inflation goal will either take more than three years to achieve or is an impossible target, a Reuters poll showed. … The results of the Reuters Corporate Survey underscore the view that authorities may not have the means to bring about an escape to deflation, with respondents noting it has become too entrenched and that the mind-set of a rapidly aging but mostly middle-class population worried about pensions hinders any exit.” While this is just one survey, some takeaways indicate sentiment’s slide in Japan this year. That almost a third of respondents don’t think the BoJ’s inflation goal is feasible shows the decline in confidence in the BoJ and a potential knock to its credibility. This seems rational to us: Monetary policy alone lacks the ability to restore sustainable economic growth to Japan, and continued tepid economic growth is likely. That said, if sentiment continues slipping, it does set a very low bar for expectations to clear—increasing the chance of upside risk. To be sure, the economy still has plenty of weak spots, and we aren’t calling for a Japanese stock surge—but even a meh reality could start outpacing too-dour expectations.

Global Market Update

Market Wrap-Up, Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Below is a market summary as of market close Tuesday, August 22, 2017:

  • Global Equities: MSCI World (+0.7%)
  • US Equities: S&P 500 (+1.0%)
  • UK Equities: MSCI UK (+0.3%)
  • Best Country: USA (+1.0%)
  • Worst Country: Italy (-0.6%)
  • Best Sector: Information Technology (+1.3%)
  • Worst Sector: Real Estate (+0.0%)

Bond Yields: 10-year US Treasury yields rose 0.03 percentage point to 2.21%.

 

Editors' Note: Tracking Stock and Bond Indexes

 

Source: FactSet. Unless otherwise specified, all country returns are based on the MSCI index in US dollars for the country or region and include net dividends. S&P 500 returns are presented including gross dividends. Sector returns are the MSCI World constituent sectors in USD including net dividends.