Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Commodities, Into Perspective, Media Hype/Myths

Falling Oil Prices: Consumers’ Boon, Producers’ Bust?

By, 10/29/2014
Ratings114.545455

Yay for consumers, boo for producers? Photo credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Gas is under $3 a gallon! Woo-hoo! What a bonanza for the US consumer! But headlines also suggest the sharply falling oil prices responsible for consumers’ allegedly big gain bring producers pain. Particularly, the US shale drillers who have played a big part in driving up supply in recent years. While there is some truth to both the pluses and minuses of recently falling oil, we’d suggest not getting carried away with either. The reality, for both the benefits and threat of low oil prices, is more nuanced.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Across the Atlantic, Into Perspective

ECB Says 25 Banks Were Undercapitalized 10 Months Ago

By, 10/28/2014
Ratings44.125

The ECB released the long-awaited results of its asset quality review (AQR) and stress tests Sunday, confirming what some documents leaked last week: 25 banks failed, collectively undercapitalized by €24.6 billion. But 12 have already made up their shortfalls, leaving 13 banks on the naughty list. They have two weeks to tell authorities how they’ll raise the remaining €9.5 billion and nine months to raise it, and all the healthy banks have one less axe hanging over their heads. The tests’ completion relieves some of the eurozone’s regulatory uncertainty—a positive—but it probably doesn’t trigger a rapid rise in loan growth.

The tests themselves contained few surprises. Of the 25 failing banks, 17 were from the eurozone periphery—nine from Italy, three from Greece, three from Cyprus, and one apiece from Spain and Portugal. No supersized banks failed—most were small regional lenders. Italy’s oldest (and third-largest) didn’t make the cut—though it has been much maligned for some time now; nor did Portugal’s largest (by market cap). Belgium’s Dexia, already under government administration for failing in real life, failed in the make-believe future, too. One French and one German bank failed, but both have already made up their tiny shortfalls. Here’s a chart:

Exhibit 1: The ECB’s Naughty List

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

A Nuanced Earnings Season

By, 10/27/2014
Ratings114.545455

Editor's Note: MarketMinder does not recommend individual securities; the below is simply an example of a broader theme we wish to highlight. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or take any other action regarding the specific securities mentioned.

Earnings season is well underway, with 208 S&P 500 firms reporting as of Friday. So what’s up with Corporate America? Earnings and revenues, that’s what! But while that in and of itself is noteworthy, there is perhaps a more nuanced takeaway we can glean from recent reports. They also put some alleged risks—Ebola, geopolitical turmoil and the many other things dominating headlines—into perspective. Many firms gave their takes on whether current headline-generating risks will impact their bottom lines in Q4 and beyond. The short answer: Most don’t think they will.

Thus far in the season, aggregate S&P 500 Q3 earnings per share are estimated to have grown 5.6% y/y—the 20th straight quarter of growth. Revenues are up 3.7% y/y, the sixth straight quarter sales have gone up. Growth has been broad-based, with all but two sectors in the black—Energy and Consumer Discretionary. As for revenues, Energy was the only sector in the red. (Exhibit 1) Now, a weaker Energy sector isn’t all that shocking—the sector is more price sensitive than volume and the oil supply glut has weighed on prices (a force that doesn’t seem all that likely to change soon). Consumer Discretionary’s dip thus far is largely driven by two firms—Ford and Pulte Homes. Those two are dragging down the headline figure, so this may just be a statistical snafu. Leaving these two categories aside, earnings and revenues are generally growing nicely.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths

The Great Global Disconnect: Headlines Versus Data

By, 10/24/2014
Ratings764.401316

While many headlines and sentiment have shown their skeptical streak lately, the data just don’t seem to want to cooperate and collapse. In fact, what we see in comparing sentiment and recent data seems much more like what we’ve seen during the five-plus year course of this big bull market.

First, let’s take a trip around the World Wide Web and assess the economic headlines grabbing eyeballs. All these headlines hit in the last two weeks:

Most of the theses underpinning these articles are very well known to investors: China faces a big slowdown—a hard landing—which will ripple globally; the eurozone is an economic quagmire; the US can’t grow alone; global growth is faltering; did we mention the eurozone is an economic quagmire? Economists have their standard prescriptions: Fiscal stimulus; don’t hike rates yet!; more (misguided) quantitative easing; weaker currencies; debt forgiveness.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Misinterpreting Volatility, Economic Edition

By, 10/23/2014
Ratings974.015464

The recent volatility has not only given some investors pause, it caused economists and academics to speculate and ruminate on what it might foretell about the economy. Which the media has now picked up on, spinning the yarn that investors’ concerns about volatility would beget a weaker economy, in turn creating more volatility for markets. While stocks are a forward-looking economic indicator, they aren’t perfectly rational in the short-term. Volatility is often just markets being markets. It doesn’t necessarily reflect economic conditions, much less create them.

Many see the latest round of swinging stocks as evidence the weak global economy is entering a new and more uncertain stage, including monetary policy shifts that might conflict, slowing growth in pockets of the globe and even health fears. They point to recent sharp shifts in the Chicago Board Options Exchange’s Volatility Index (VIX)—which surged to a 28-month high last week, then plummeted at least 10% per day on October 16, 17 and 18—then rose the same amount the following trading day.[i] Many see the VIX as the uncertainty index—“The Fear Gauge.” (Nevermind that this is a fallacy, because the VIX merely attempts to measure the magnitude of future moves, not the direction.) The presumption is that with rising uncertainty/fear/VIX comes a near-inability for businesses to plan for the future.

The Kansas City Fed added some academic firepower to the issue, too. They published a paper September 4, suggesting spikes in uncertainty slow growth and hiring. The VIX is their uncertainty gauge, and they wag an accusatory finger at the sharply rising readings in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Hiring, they found, slowed during the volatility. They argue the effect didn’t go away as fast as the VIX fell, suggesting to them a lingering fear that weighed on the economy. In theory, uncertainty is bad for business and stocks. So you might presume there is some underlying truth to the notion today.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Moving Averages Don’t Move Stocks

By, 10/22/2014
Ratings424.119048

After a big surge to close Tuesday at 1941.28, the S&P 500 Price Index easily surpassed an average of its closing prices over the last 200 trading days, 1908.[i] To many, that’s trivia. But to bullish technical analysts, it’s confirmation—time to breathe a sigh of relief—the market’s bounce back is real! The 200-day moving average is a widely watched gauge for chart-lovers, and since the S&P fell through it recently, it has been a source of great consternation for some. But in our view, using stocks’ 200- (or any period, really) day moving average to predict future direction is pure folly. Past performance—whether smoothed, averaged or other—does not dictate the future, as the S&P’s recent ride (again) shows.   

For the unfamiliar, the 200-day moving average is a very common technical indicator. Broadly speaking, proponents argue if the S&P 500 is above its 200-day moving average, it should continue rising. If it falls through this average, look out below. Many cite instances when the 200-day moving average was broken during bear markets and, sometimes, corrections. But that is just kind of a function of longer-term average meeting shorter-term sharp move. It isn’t predictive, just a result.

Overall, the rule that breaking the 200-day moving average predicts bad times ahead doesn’t pass the logic test. If the S&P 500 staying above its 200-day moving average indicates future gains, stocks should never fall. Likewise, the S&P falling below its 200-day moving average would mean stocks would never rise. Both statements are quite obviously faulty, but when the S&P fell towards—and ultimately breached—its 200-day moving average last week, many technical analysts saw stocks entering a longer-term downtrend. However, unless you define “longer-term downtrend” as seven trading sessions, we’d say those concerns were a teensy bit off. (Exhibit 1)

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Commodities, Media Hype/Myths

About Those Falling Commodity Prices

By, 10/21/2014
Ratings664.090909

Here is a scary story you may have heard this month: Commodity prices are tanking as Asia’s demand for crude oil and industrial metals dives, signaling a global economic slowdown. It has appeared, with varying degrees of detail and hyperbole, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Some infer bad things from charts like Exhibit 1. Others use anecdotal evidence and rhetoric. We don’t think either approach—or the thesis—matches reality, however. Take a deep data dive, and you’ll see a far more boring, benign reason for falling prices: Supply is up way more than demand, which isn’t plummeting (contrary to widespread belief).

Exhibit 1: Select Commodity Prices Year-to-Date

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Behavioral Finance

Amid Volatility, Beware Your Inner Investing Demons

By, 10/20/2014
Ratings504.56

Ebola, deflation, the Fed (!), bond market liquidity, technical indicators and more. The media seems obsessed with hunting down larger explanation for recent volatility. The more obsessive they get, the more likely investors get caught up in all the noise, increasing the risk their brains get the best of them. Take note: Now is a time to be conscious of your inner investing demons—the kind that can cause you to act counter to your long-term goals. Recognizing these pitfalls is a key step to keeping them in check.

Year to date, the MSCI World Total Return Index has closed more than 1% up or down 18 days.[i] Of those 18, five came in October’s 13 trading sessions, and two had intraday swings of greater than 1% (one was greater than 2%) this tally doesn’t capture.[ii] Friday continued October’s choppy start, with the MSCI World jumping +1.3% (yes, big up is still volatility). At one point, the global gauge had fallen -9.3% from its peak.[iii] After Friday’s big bounce, global stocks were -8.1% below the peak.[iv] Will they fall further? No one can know, in our view. There is no way to tell if Friday’s bounce marked the end of the short-term dip. We’ll know if markets avoided the first technical correction since 2012 only in hindsight.[v] But we do know when volatility runs higher, it often triggers humans’ innate fight-or-flight instinct. This is a useful evolutionary reaction when you are trying to avoid being a wild animal’s lunch, but it isn’t helpful in markets, which require rationality. Maybe you’re above making such errors. That’s possible. But at the same time, it doesn’t hurt to review some typical mental errors so you can learn from others’ mistakes and hopefully avoid making them.

Recency bias is one pitfall many investors succumb to when markets get rocky. Recency bias is the tendency to take very recent market behavior and extrapolate it forward, sometimes to degrees most people would think irrational when coolheaded. It’s easy to see how you might get engulfed by this today, as headlines proclaim, “October’s Wild Ride Isn’t Over Yet” and attempt to explain “Why All This Market Volatility Is Here to Stay.”

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths

Did a Fed Waffle Cause Thursday’s Rebound?

By, 10/17/2014
Ratings324.328125

This investor is putting Thursday’s market action under a magnifying glass. Photo by Comstock.

We have to make sure that inflation and inflation expectations remain near our target. And for that reason I think a reasonable response of the Fed in this situation would be to invoke the clause on the taper that said that the taper was data dependent. And we could go on pause on the taper at this juncture and wait until we see how the data shakes out into December.…

Commentary

Christopher Wong

Four Tips for Retirement Investing

By, 10/16/2014
Ratings1254.204

Retirement should mean more time to relax, not worry. Photo credit: Guillermo Murcia/Getty Images.

Retirement: the word strikes both joy and fear in the hearts of many long-term investors. Joy over the possibilities of post-working life: traveling, pursuing new hobbies and/or spending more time with family and friends. Fear due to all the unknowns: How much should I be saving?; Will I have enough to retire when I want?; What if I run out of money during retirement? The media exacerbates the fear with headlines screaming how unprepared Americans are for their golden years. But retirement investment needn’t intimidate. Now, ask most financial professionals how to prepare, and you’ll probably get a cliché answer—Save More! But here are four less-often-shared tips to get you started—tips equally applicable if you’re far from retirement or already in it.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Moving Averages Don’t Move Stocks

By, 10/22/2014
Ratings424.119048

After a big surge to close Tuesday at 1941.28, the S&P 500 Price Index easily surpassed an average of its closing prices over the last 200 trading days, 1908.[i] To many, that’s trivia. But to bullish technical analysts, it’s confirmation—time to breathe a sigh of relief—the market’s bounce back is real! The 200-day moving average is a widely watched gauge for chart-lovers, and since the S&P fell through it recently, it has been a source of great consternation for some. But in our view, using stocks’ 200- (or any period, really) day moving average to predict future direction is pure folly. Past performance—whether smoothed, averaged or other—does not dictate the future, as the S&P’s recent ride (again) shows.   

For the unfamiliar, the 200-day moving average is a very common technical indicator. Broadly speaking, proponents argue if the S&P 500 is above its 200-day moving average, it should continue rising. If it falls through this average, look out below. Many cite instances when the 200-day moving average was broken during bear markets and, sometimes, corrections. But that is just kind of a function of longer-term average meeting shorter-term sharp move. It isn’t predictive, just a result.

Overall, the rule that breaking the 200-day moving average predicts bad times ahead doesn’t pass the logic test. If the S&P 500 staying above its 200-day moving average indicates future gains, stocks should never fall. Likewise, the S&P falling below its 200-day moving average would mean stocks would never rise. Both statements are quite obviously faulty, but when the S&P fell towards—and ultimately breached—its 200-day moving average last week, many technical analysts saw stocks entering a longer-term downtrend. However, unless you define “longer-term downtrend” as seven trading sessions, we’d say those concerns were a teensy bit off. (Exhibit 1)

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Commodities, Media Hype/Myths

About Those Falling Commodity Prices

By, 10/21/2014
Ratings664.090909

Here is a scary story you may have heard this month: Commodity prices are tanking as Asia’s demand for crude oil and industrial metals dives, signaling a global economic slowdown. It has appeared, with varying degrees of detail and hyperbole, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Some infer bad things from charts like Exhibit 1. Others use anecdotal evidence and rhetoric. We don’t think either approach—or the thesis—matches reality, however. Take a deep data dive, and you’ll see a far more boring, benign reason for falling prices: Supply is up way more than demand, which isn’t plummeting (contrary to widespread belief).

Exhibit 1: Select Commodity Prices Year-to-Date

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Behavioral Finance

Amid Volatility, Beware Your Inner Investing Demons

By, 10/20/2014
Ratings504.56

Ebola, deflation, the Fed (!), bond market liquidity, technical indicators and more. The media seems obsessed with hunting down larger explanation for recent volatility. The more obsessive they get, the more likely investors get caught up in all the noise, increasing the risk their brains get the best of them. Take note: Now is a time to be conscious of your inner investing demons—the kind that can cause you to act counter to your long-term goals. Recognizing these pitfalls is a key step to keeping them in check.

Year to date, the MSCI World Total Return Index has closed more than 1% up or down 18 days.[i] Of those 18, five came in October’s 13 trading sessions, and two had intraday swings of greater than 1% (one was greater than 2%) this tally doesn’t capture.[ii] Friday continued October’s choppy start, with the MSCI World jumping +1.3% (yes, big up is still volatility). At one point, the global gauge had fallen -9.3% from its peak.[iii] After Friday’s big bounce, global stocks were -8.1% below the peak.[iv] Will they fall further? No one can know, in our view. There is no way to tell if Friday’s bounce marked the end of the short-term dip. We’ll know if markets avoided the first technical correction since 2012 only in hindsight.[v] But we do know when volatility runs higher, it often triggers humans’ innate fight-or-flight instinct. This is a useful evolutionary reaction when you are trying to avoid being a wild animal’s lunch, but it isn’t helpful in markets, which require rationality. Maybe you’re above making such errors. That’s possible. But at the same time, it doesn’t hurt to review some typical mental errors so you can learn from others’ mistakes and hopefully avoid making them.

Recency bias is one pitfall many investors succumb to when markets get rocky. Recency bias is the tendency to take very recent market behavior and extrapolate it forward, sometimes to degrees most people would think irrational when coolheaded. It’s easy to see how you might get engulfed by this today, as headlines proclaim, “October’s Wild Ride Isn’t Over Yet” and attempt to explain “Why All This Market Volatility Is Here to Stay.”

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths

Did a Fed Waffle Cause Thursday’s Rebound?

By, 10/17/2014
Ratings324.328125

This investor is putting Thursday’s market action under a magnifying glass. Photo by Comstock.

We have to make sure that inflation and inflation expectations remain near our target. And for that reason I think a reasonable response of the Fed in this situation would be to invoke the clause on the taper that said that the taper was data dependent. And we could go on pause on the taper at this juncture and wait until we see how the data shakes out into December.…

Commentary

Christopher Wong

Four Tips for Retirement Investing

By, 10/16/2014
Ratings1254.204

Retirement should mean more time to relax, not worry. Photo credit: Guillermo Murcia/Getty Images.

Retirement: the word strikes both joy and fear in the hearts of many long-term investors. Joy over the possibilities of post-working life: traveling, pursuing new hobbies and/or spending more time with family and friends. Fear due to all the unknowns: How much should I be saving?; Will I have enough to retire when I want?; What if I run out of money during retirement? The media exacerbates the fear with headlines screaming how unprepared Americans are for their golden years. But retirement investment needn’t intimidate. Now, ask most financial professionals how to prepare, and you’ll probably get a cliché answer—Save More! But here are four less-often-shared tips to get you started—tips equally applicable if you’re far from retirement or already in it.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Inflation, Media Hype/Myths

Why We Don’t Fear Deflationary Doom Is Here

By, 10/16/2014
Ratings474.404255

Stocks had a wild ride Wednesday, with the S&P 500 Price Index down as much as -3% before climbing back to finish the day down just -0.8%.  Perhaps the correction many have long awaited is here—at one point, the S&P 500 Price Index was about one percentage point removed from correction territory (10% lower than a prior high point)—but it’s only clear in hindsight. Such moves are sentiment-driven and tend to come and go fast. There is usually a host of negative headlines, surrounding a spooky story or stories. But corrections can be caused by virtually anything. Or nothing. Such headlines abound today.

Let’s consider one of the day’s big fears: global deflation. To many observers, the evidence prices are about to spiral downward is stacking up. Chinese consumer inflation slowed to just 1.6% y/y in September—the lowest since 2009—and Chinese producer prices slid faster, hitting -1.8% y/y. September US producer prices fell -0.1% m/m. UK CPI slowed to 1.2% y/y, also the slowest since 2009. 10-year US Treasury yields briefly dipped below 2%. Oil prices continued tanking.[i] Market-driven future inflation gauges, including five-year US TIPS spreads and the eurozone’s five-year/five-year inflation swap, are falling. German inflation is stuck at 0.8% y/y. The eurozone’s final September inflation estimate hits Thursday, and no one expects improvement from the 0.3% y/y first read. 

Two primary interpretations emerged from this data bonanza. One, the slow ebb in prices will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and deflation will choke off the global expansion. Two, low inflation/deflation will make debt more burdensome—another growth headwind. These are big, popular, scary stories, but we don’t think either carries much weight—problematic deflation doesn’t appear to be in the cards.

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Research Staff

MLPs and Your Portfolio

By, 11/26/2013
Ratings823.890244

With interest rates on everything from savings accounts to junk bonds at or near generational lows, many income-seeking investors are looking for creative or, to some, exotic means of generating cash flow. Some are turning to a relatively little-known type of security—master limited partnerships (MLPs). MLPs may attract investors for a number of reasons: their high dividend yields and tax incentives, to name a couple. But, like all investments, MLPs have pros and cons, which are crucial to understand if you’re considering investing in them.

MLPs were created in the 1980s by a Congress hoping to generate more interest in energy infrastructure investment. The aim was to create a security with limited partnership-like tax benefits, but publicly traded—bringing more liquidity and fewer restrictions and thus, ideally, more investors. Currently, only select types of companies are allowed to form MLPs—primarily in energy transportation (e.g., oil pipelines and similar energy infrastructure).

To mitigate their tax liability, MLPs distribute 90% of their profits to their investors—or unit holders—through periodic income distributions, much like dividend payments. And, because there is no initial loss of capital to taxes, MLPs can offer relatively high yields, usually around 6-7%. Unit holders receive a tax benefit, too: Much of the dividend payment is treated as a return of capital—how much is determined by the distributable cash flow (DCF) from the MLP’s underlying venture (e.g., the oil pipeline).

Research Analysis

Elisabeth Dellinger
Reality Check

Inside Indian Taper Terror

By, 11/08/2013
Ratings174.294117

When the Fed kept quantitative easing (QE) in place last week, US investors weren’t the only ones (wrongly) breathing a sigh of relief. Taper terror is fully global! In Emerging Markets (EM), many believe QE tapering will cause foreign capital to retreat. Some EM currencies took it on the chin as taper talk swirled over the summer, and many believe this is evidence of their vulnerability—with India the prime example as its rupee fell over 20% against the dollar at one point. Yet while taper jitters perhaps contributed to the volatility, evidence suggests India’s troubles are tied more to long-running structural issues and seemingly erratic monetary policy—and suggests EM taper fears are as false as their US counterparts.

The claim QE is propping up asset prices implies there is some sort of overinflated disconnect between Emerging Markets assets and fundamentals—a mini-bubble. Yet this is far removed from reality—not what you’d expect if QE were a significant positive driver. Additionally, the thesis assumes money from rounds two, three and infinity of QE has flooded into the developing world—and flows more with each round of monthly Fed bond purchases. As Exhibit 1 shows, however, foreign EM equity inflows were strongest in 2009 as investors reversed their 2008 panic-driven retreat. Flows eased off during 2010 and have been rather weak—and often negative—since 2011.

Exhibit 1: Emerging Markets Foreign Equity Inflows

Research Analysis

Brad Pyles

Why This Bull Market Has Room to Run

By, 10/31/2013
Ratings884.102273

With investors expecting the Fed to end quantitative easing soon, the yield spread is widening—fuel for stocks! Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Since 1932, the average S&P 500 bull market has lasted roughly four and a half years. With the present bull market a hair older than the average—and with domestic and global indexes setting new highs—some fret this bull market is long in the tooth. However, while bull markets die of many things, age and gravity aren’t among them. History argues the fundamentals underpinning this bull market are powerful enough to lift stocks higher from here, with economic growth likely to continue—and potentially even accelerate moving forward as bank lending increases.

Research Analysis

Christo Barker
US Economy

Let’s Call It FARRP

By, 10/10/2013
Ratings93.777778

While the rest of the country fretted over taper terror, government shutdown and debt ceiling limits, the Federal Reserve tested its Fixed Rate Full-Allotment Reverse-Repo Facility (a mouthful—let’s call it FARRP) for the first time September 24. FARRP allows banks and non-banks, like money market funds and asset managers, to access Fed-held assets—i.e., the long-term securities bought under the Fed’s quantitative easing—via securities dealers’ tri-party repo (and reverse-repo) market for short-term funding. (More on repos to follow.) FARRP aims to address what many feel is a collateral shortage in the non-bank financial system caused by too much QE bond buying concentrating eligible collateral on the Fed’s balance sheet, where it doesn’t circulate freely. As a result, many private sector repo rates turned negative. But, should FARRP be fully implemented, the facility could actually hinder some assets (in this case, high-quality, long-term collateral like bonds) from circulating through the financial system—much like quantitative easing (QE) locked up excess bank reserves. A more effective means of freeing collateral in the repo market is tapering the Fed’s QE.

Repurchase agreements, or repos, are used to generate short-term liquidity to fund other banking or investment activity—a means to move liquidity (cash) from one institution to another. In a repo, one party sells an asset—usually long-term debt—agreeing to repurchase it at a different price later on. A reverse repo is, well, the opposite: One party buys an asset from another, agreeing to sell it back at a different price later. In both cases, the asset acts as collateral for what is effectively the buyer’s loan to the seller, and the repo rate is the difference between the initial and future sales prices, usually expressed as a per annum interest rate. The exchange only lasts a short while—FARRP’s reverse repos are overnight affairs to ensure markets are sufficiently funded. In the test last Tuesday, the private sector tapped the facility for $11.81 billion of collateral—a small, but not insignificant, amount.

FARRP’s first round is scheduled to end January 29, and during that time, non-bank institutions can invest between $500 million and $1 billion each at FARRP’s fixed overnight reverse-repo rates ranging from one to five basis points. A first for repo markets: Normally, repo and reverse-repo rates are free-floating, determined by market forces. Another of FARRP’s differentiating factors is private-sector need will facilitate reverse-repo bids instead of the Fed. Ideally, FARRP’s structure will encourage unproductive collateral to be released back into the system when it’s most needed—and new sources of collateral demand may help ensure this. Swaps, for example, are shifting to collateral-backed exchanges due to Dodd-Frank regulation—meaning more collateral will be needed to back the same amount of trading activity. Collateral requirements for loans will likely also rise.

Subscribe

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

What We're Reading

By , The New York Times, 10/29/2014

MarketMinder's View: An impressive collection of misperceived data and theories about the Fed’s quantitative easing (QE), in pictures! We’ll go chart by chart, for your convenience.

Chart 1—Fed Balance Sheet: Yep, it’s up a lot. The taper is also not going to bring it down, as they intend to reinvest maturing principal and no bonds are being sold. The discussion here is accurate.

Chart 2—Mortgage-Backed Securities: Yep, they bought ‘em.

Chart 3—Corporate Bond and Mortgage Rates: Yep, they’re down. Though, we’d note that corporate bonds have not been targeted outright by QE.

Here is where we get wackier.

Chart 4—The Cyclically Adjusted P/E Ratio (CAPE) is at Pre-Bust Levels: It is, but this has next to nothing to do with QE, is a poor measure of valuations and isn’t a timing tool for investing. Since it blends together earnings from the last decade, it’s currently more inflated by the recession’s slashing the “E” in CAPE than anything with QE. Stocks aren’t expensive by historical standards using better measures, and even if they were, they could still rise.

Chart 5: Inflation. QE, particularly QEs 2 and 3, is deflationary. It weighs on long-term interest rates, narrowing the spread between short- and long-term yields. This spread is a key determinant of banks’ lending profits. More narrow equals less profitable, and as a result, less plentiful lending. Those low rates discouraged loan supply. Without lending, the Fed is powerless to boost money supply and inflation.

Chart 6: Potential GDP and GDP: GDP is an imperfect reflection of the economy, and potential GDP is an imperfect extrapolation of the trend of this imperfect reflection. None of this is telling.

Chart 7: Jobs follow growth, growth has been slow in this cycle, in part due to QE.

Loan growth in this cycle has been the slowest of any on record. Growth has been too. That is not coincidence, and QE is partly to blame, not laud.

By , The Telegraph, 10/29/2014

MarketMinder's View: An enjoyable read, but the thesis here is off and the evidence less convincing when you put it under a finer lens. The Riksbank cut rates to zero because it seeks higher inflation, which is the primary role of most central banks the world over. They didn’t explicitly target a weaker currency, the aim of a currency war. But even if they did, you don’t win a currency war—you win and lose, because import prices rise, impacting businesses’ and consumers’ bottom lines. Finally, the notion, “The Riksbank faces an acute dilemma, forced to pick between the competing poisons of deflation or an asset boom” is great writing but off-target analysis. For one, they weren’t using rates to control housing prices (the perceived asset boom), they were using macroprudential policies (their own flavor of wrong). But that is also a false either/or. The debt to disposable income figures cited here as “jumping” from 120 percent to 175 percent over the past twelve years as evidence of the bubble amount to a compound annual growth rate of less than 2.5 percent per year. That’s it folks, 2.5 percent. Never mistake high quality wordplay employing a certain dramatic flair for fact-packed analysis.

By , The Wall Street Journal, 10/29/2014

MarketMinder's View: Full disclosure: We are not fans of technical analysis. But this article actually just completely argues against itself, illustrating why we don’t buy into the predictive quality of lines on a page. We are told by one devotee that, “Well, those two key technical markers having been hit, there isn’t much upon which traders can key, he said. ‘They are behind us, leaving no live formations to key off of. That and support being light means that we should be prepared for the expected volatility in the day’s final two hours.’” But here is the thing: The rest of the article shows you that technical analysis didn’t foretell anything that has happened over the last two weeks or even longer. But now we’re in uncharted territory. What were we in then? Here are the facts: Technical analysis relies on devotees’ interpretation of past price levels. But stocks aren’t serially correlated, so you can never predict returns by “drawing lines on charts and extrapolating them into the future.”

By , The Telegraph, 10/29/2014

MarketMinder's View: This is a “timebomb” with an exceptionally long, slow-burning wick to ignite what could be a big ol’ dud anyway. The argument is similar to the one offered in the US about the government’s “unfunded liabilities”—long-term forecasts and projections of the impact of entitlement spending on the public debt. Suffice it to say, we strongly doubt any of the forecasts here for what UK debt-to-GDP will look like in 2061 are very reliable. But even if they are, and their worst case scenario comes to pass, we’d like to point out Britain has had debt exceeding 200% of GDP before—when it had an empire the sun never set on. Japan, by the way, has 220% debt-to-GDP right now. Now Japan isn’t exactly a shining economic star, but it isn’t because of their debt—the neo-mercantilist, anti-competitive tendencies create that issue. Britain doesn’t have those factors. Besides, we’ve seen many nations reform pensions and other benefits in recent years, and there is no reason the UK couldn’t do so at any point in the next 47 years if it were necessary to avoid a potentially bad 2061.

Global Market Update

Market Wrap-Up, Wed Oct 29 2014

Below is a market summary (as of market close Wednesday, 10/29/2014):

  • Global Equities: MSCI World (+0.1%)
  • US Equities: S&P 500 (-0.1%)
  • UK Equities: MSCI UK (+0.8%)
  • Best Country: Japan (+1.4%)
  • Worst Country: Spain (-1.4%)
  • Best Sector: Energy (+0.4%)
  • Worst Sector: Utilities (-0.3%)
  • Bond Yields: 10-year US Treasurys rose .02 to 2.32%

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. Sector returns are the MSCI World constituent sectors in USD including net dividends.