Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Commodities

OPECs’ Biggest Problem—in Two Charts

By, 07/21/2017
Ratings714.190141

OPEC’s efforts to rein in global oil production—and thereby quell the supply glut that has plagued Energy markets for three years—aren’t exactly bearing fruit.

While the cartel did manage to extend its previously agreed-to deal to reduce supply from members and a few select non-members (most notably, Russia), they are struggling to maintain a united front. This week, small-producing OPEC member Ecuador took the unusual step of publicly announcing they’d pump more than their allotted 522,000 barrels per day. And output increased from Libya and Nigeria, two OPEC members excused from the deal, which contributed to June OPEC production rising 1.4% to 32.61 million barrels per day—exceeding the group’s 32.5 million barrel ceiling. What’s more, compliance with the quotas fell to the lowest rate in six months, 78%. While these are no doubt challenges to the cartel’s ability to boost crude prices, there is a far bigger problem—one beyond their control: US shale. In our view, it all adds up to low oil prices sticking around longer than most think, a negative for Energy stocks.

Fast-growing US crude oil production was a key factor generating the glut in the first place, which is largely why OPEC’s initial strategy was to try to ramp up output in late 2014. They presumed lower prices would squash producers, fuel bankruptcies and bring some production offline. And for a time, they were right.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics, Reality Check

The State of Gridlock

By, 07/20/2017
Ratings784.282051


Working at cross-purposes. (Photo by eelnosiva/iStock.)

Disclaimer: As always, our political commentary is intended to be nonpartisan. We favor no party nor any politician, and neither do markets. We assess developments solely for their potential market impact.

In the dog days of summer, the last thing anyone wants is more hot air, but that’s exactly what politicians are giving us. Thankfully, it has a silver lining, and yes we know we’re mixing metaphors: All the squabbling and posturing amounts to gridlock, which lowers legislative risk and makes stocks happy—even as people mostly hate it. The less gets done, the less markets have to worry about sweeping change creating winners and losers.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Don’t Sweat This Summer’s US Economic Data

By, 07/20/2017
Ratings444.159091

It’s the dog days of summer, and if recent US headlines have you feeling in need of an ice-cold tonic, fret not! Your friendly MarketMinder staff has just the remedy: some cool bits of US data. As debates rage about the health of the US economy—particularly after some recent data were mixed—a high-level look suggests the drivers underpinning this expansion remain fine overall.  

June CPI numbers came out last week following Fed head Janet Yellen’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, which featured some inflation chatter: “There may be more going on. We’re watching inflation very carefully in light of low readings. … I think it’s premature to conclude that the underlying inflation trend is falling well short of 2%. I haven’t reached such a conclusion.” In recent weeks, Fed people have been mulling whether inflation’s slowdown is “transitory” or more likely to persist—if the latter, some have lobbied waiting on raising interest rates. It seems Ms. Yellen is in the “transitory” camp, though we caution against assuming Fed words mean action. Their decisions are “data-dependent,” which is code for “they are going to wait and see and interpret the data as they will.”

Mostly, we find it odd central bankers are tying themselves in knots over very stable prices, seeing as how price stability is supposedly one of their primary goals. For instance, while June CPI slowed to 1.6% y/y from May’s 1.9%, energy prices’ year-over-year gains petering out were partly to blame. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, remains in the 1.7% - 2.3% bandwidth seen over the past several years. Prices of some core goods and services (e.g., vehicles and apparel in goods, airline fares, wireless phone services and motor vehicle repairs) have been weak lately, but it’s normal for various items in the CPI basket to diverge. Plus, we daresay consumers aren’t exactly screaming for the Fed to drive airfares higher. 

Commentary

Elisabeth Dellinger
Across the Atlantic, Forecasting

Wimbledon, Markets, Bad Analogies and You

By, 07/12/2017
Ratings1183.622881

 

Sam Querrey awaits a serve from Italy’s Thomas Fabbiano in their first-round match on Court 11, nine days before his shock quarterfinal win over Andy Murray. Photo by Elisabeth Dellinger.

Hello readers, today I’m going to be self-indulgent and treat you to a “What I Did on My Summer Vacation” essay, complete with two (probably bad) analogies to tie it to markets. When one is a tennis nut and finally gets to attend Wimbledon for the first time—and spends several hours queuing for it—one generally wants to find a way to write about it. So here, friends, is what this year’s tournament can teach you about investing.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics, Media Hype/Myths

Debt Ceiling Episode CXI: Return of the Revenge of the Son of the Debt Ceiling and the Temple of Doom Strikes Back, Part Deux

By, 07/12/2017
Ratings693.992754

Summer is here, which means it’s time for bad movie sequels and clichéd analogies likening various things to bad movie sequels. So you can count on your friendly MarketMinder editors—with tongue firmly in cheek—to bring you an article about the debt ceiling, everyone’s favorite bad sequel, which is back in the news thanks to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s June testimony to Congress and lawmakers’ loose plans to vote on an increase before their summer recess. We’ve gone through this song and dance—err, sorry, seen this movie—many times before. First politicians play hardball, then administration-types warn about the risk of default, then the media has a conniption fit about default, and on they go until finally they kick the can. We’ve already had the first and second steps, but interestingly, the media commentary this time around has a different flavor: We’ve seen a raft of editorials arguing for the debt ceiling to go the way of the dodo. Seems like a good idea to us! The debt ceiling has always been symbolic. It doesn’t actually limit debt (which isn’t a problem anyway) in practice, and failure to raise it doesn’t do all the terrible things people fear it will. Might as well formally acknowledge it is an annoying heap of nothingness.

In the old days, Congress had to authorize every new debt increase. It worked for a while, but then a little thing called World War I happened, and Uncle Sam needed to mobilize. To speed the war effort, Congress allowed the Treasury to issue new debt at its discretion, without going to lawmakers for approval, as long as debt stayed below a certain amount. When debt reached whatever arbitrary limit they set, they’d simply raise it, and everyone would carry on as usual. The US did not borrow itself into oblivion, the Allies won the war, and all was good.

For a few decades, raising the debt ceiling was a boring procedural matter. But in the mid-20th century, politicians—ever the politickers—figured out voters weren’t big on debt, and that positioning themselves as anti-debt crusaders allowed them to use the debt “limit”[i] as a tool to win concessions. And thus began the time-honored tradition of holding the debt ceiling hostage to use as a bargaining chip in other fights. Both parties—and pretty much all factions within them—are guilty of this, and we suspect you aren’t invited to the “cool” parties on Capitol Hill until you can claim responsibility for setting off a debt ceiling fight. As a result, almost every time it comes around, we are all treated to a political circus. And when everyone is satisfied with whatever symbolic victory they can peddle to their constituents and lobbyist friends, they kick the can and go home.

Commentary

Christopher Wong
MarketMinder Minute, GDP, Reality Check

Market Insights: GDP Doesn’t Predict Stocks

By, 07/10/2017
Ratings433.883721

In this Market Insights video, we discuss the relationship between Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and stocks. Or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Investor Sentiment, Reality Check

P/Es Are Above Average and That’s OK

By, 07/07/2017
Ratings834.325301

For years, folks have feared stocks are too expensive. Such worries seem ever-present, but they get renewed attention when various financial luminaries add their own warnings. Last week, for example, multiple Fed members commented on asset prices, using phrases like “somewhat rich,” “running very much on fumes” and “close monitoring is warranted.” Sounds worrying! But valuations alone don’t predict market direction. They are merely a sign of where sentiment is now: warming, but not close to euphoric.

The S&P 500 forward 12-month price-to-earnings ratio (which compares current stock prices to forecasted earnings) is above its post-2000 average—but only just! It stands at 17.6 today versus the post-2000 average of 15.4.[i] This is pretty unremarkable and not a sharp break from the recent past, either: the forward P/E first breached 17 on February 24, 2015 and has averaged 16.5 since.[ii] US stocks returned 21.3% over that time—gains that folks freaked out by “too high” valuations missed.[iii]

Exhibit 1: S&P 500 Valuations’ Mild Rise

Source: FactSet, as of 6/23/2017. S&P 500 12-Month Forward P/E Ratio, 12/31/1999 – 6/23/2017. 

Commentary

Ken Liu
GDP, Into Perspective

GDP Underestimates Economy’s Amazingness

By, 07/06/2017
Ratings714.28169


A lot of what goes on here isn’t counted in GDP. (Photo by alacatr/iStock.)

Which is right: high-flying stocks or ho-hum GDP? It’s one of this bull market’s defining questions, and GDP recently lost some ground in this intellectual horserace, thanks to the very statisticians who calculate it. That’s right, the BEA’s bean counters recently determined they’ve missed a few over the years, due to the increasing difficulty of calculating inflation. For stocks, the discovery doesn’t mean much—the findings are backward-looking, while markets discount the future. But it does provide more evidence that when markets and the economy (measured by government statistics) seem disconnected, markets are generally a more accurate—and timely—gauge.

Ever since Simon Kuznets spearheaded the effort to create national economic accounts in the 1930s[i]—basically creating GDP in the process—economists have been on a never-ending quest to perfect the measurement. From the start, Kuznets warned accounting for all productive activity is an impossible task—and the final measurement would inevitably be wrong.[ii] Determining what to count and where to classify it has only become trickier as technology improves and the digital economy mushrooms. As a recent book on the subject, Ryan Avent’s The Wealth of Humans, points out:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
US Economy, Market Cycles

Happy Expansioniversary!

By, 07/05/2017
Ratings674.470149

As milestone birthdays go, eight usually doesn’t rate. Aside from rhyming with “great,” it seemingly isn’t so special a date. Yet as this economic expansion—which officially began in July 2009—turns eight, let’s all raise a glass and consider some timeless and timely takeaways.

Expansions and Bull Markets Aren’t Twins

When the recession officially ended on June 30, 2009, the bull market was already charging higher. It was born nearly three months earlier, on March 9. By the time the recovery officially began, the S&P 500 was up 36.9% from its low.[i] When the advance report of Q3 2009 GDP came out on October 29—providing the first official confirmation that growth had resumed in July—the S&P 500 had gained 59.8%.[ii]

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Trade, Politics

Will a Possible Trump Steel Tariff Corrode Stocks?

By, 07/03/2017
Ratings644.351563

If you follow financial media lately, you might be under the impression you ought to be steeling yourself for some new protectionist measures from the Trump administration. Any day now Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is expected to announce findings from an investigation—permitted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—that could argue for tariffs on steel, allegedly based on national security concerns. This all plays right into longstanding fears that Trump is a trade disaster waiting to happen, triggering headlines claiming “Trump's plan to slap tariffs on steel imports carries big economic and political risks” and warning they “could set off global trade wars.” But despite the sensational rhetoric, steel tariffs are nothing new and, in our view, are unlikely to live up to pundits’ fears.

President Trump’s positions on trade have stoked these fears. On the campaign trail, Trump was a sharp critic of trade, in particular the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China. He frequently said on the stump he would use executive branch powers to “protect” American jobs and specifically that he believes steel imports are “killing our steelworkers and our steel companies.” (Hence, why we say Commerce’s investigation is allegedly based on national security concerns.) Trump’s protectionist rhetoric is a major reason why Wall Street feared him winning, and why some economists and pundits argue his policies are bad for the economy.

But regardless of those fears, what the Trump administration is proposing is nothing new. Basically every administration since President Lyndon Johnson has enacted some variety of steel tariff, even if the justification slightly differs now.

Commentary

Christopher Wong
MarketMinder Minute, GDP, Reality Check

Market Insights: GDP Doesn’t Predict Stocks

By, 07/10/2017
Ratings433.883721

In this Market Insights video, we discuss the relationship between Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and stocks. Or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Investor Sentiment, Reality Check

P/Es Are Above Average and That’s OK

By, 07/07/2017
Ratings834.325301

For years, folks have feared stocks are too expensive. Such worries seem ever-present, but they get renewed attention when various financial luminaries add their own warnings. Last week, for example, multiple Fed members commented on asset prices, using phrases like “somewhat rich,” “running very much on fumes” and “close monitoring is warranted.” Sounds worrying! But valuations alone don’t predict market direction. They are merely a sign of where sentiment is now: warming, but not close to euphoric.

The S&P 500 forward 12-month price-to-earnings ratio (which compares current stock prices to forecasted earnings) is above its post-2000 average—but only just! It stands at 17.6 today versus the post-2000 average of 15.4.[i] This is pretty unremarkable and not a sharp break from the recent past, either: the forward P/E first breached 17 on February 24, 2015 and has averaged 16.5 since.[ii] US stocks returned 21.3% over that time—gains that folks freaked out by “too high” valuations missed.[iii]

Exhibit 1: S&P 500 Valuations’ Mild Rise

Source: FactSet, as of 6/23/2017. S&P 500 12-Month Forward P/E Ratio, 12/31/1999 – 6/23/2017. 

Commentary

Ken Liu
GDP, Into Perspective

GDP Underestimates Economy’s Amazingness

By, 07/06/2017
Ratings714.28169


A lot of what goes on here isn’t counted in GDP. (Photo by alacatr/iStock.)

Which is right: high-flying stocks or ho-hum GDP? It’s one of this bull market’s defining questions, and GDP recently lost some ground in this intellectual horserace, thanks to the very statisticians who calculate it. That’s right, the BEA’s bean counters recently determined they’ve missed a few over the years, due to the increasing difficulty of calculating inflation. For stocks, the discovery doesn’t mean much—the findings are backward-looking, while markets discount the future. But it does provide more evidence that when markets and the economy (measured by government statistics) seem disconnected, markets are generally a more accurate—and timely—gauge.

Ever since Simon Kuznets spearheaded the effort to create national economic accounts in the 1930s[i]—basically creating GDP in the process—economists have been on a never-ending quest to perfect the measurement. From the start, Kuznets warned accounting for all productive activity is an impossible task—and the final measurement would inevitably be wrong.[ii] Determining what to count and where to classify it has only become trickier as technology improves and the digital economy mushrooms. As a recent book on the subject, Ryan Avent’s The Wealth of Humans, points out:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
US Economy, Market Cycles

Happy Expansioniversary!

By, 07/05/2017
Ratings674.470149

As milestone birthdays go, eight usually doesn’t rate. Aside from rhyming with “great,” it seemingly isn’t so special a date. Yet as this economic expansion—which officially began in July 2009—turns eight, let’s all raise a glass and consider some timeless and timely takeaways.

Expansions and Bull Markets Aren’t Twins

When the recession officially ended on June 30, 2009, the bull market was already charging higher. It was born nearly three months earlier, on March 9. By the time the recovery officially began, the S&P 500 was up 36.9% from its low.[i] When the advance report of Q3 2009 GDP came out on October 29—providing the first official confirmation that growth had resumed in July—the S&P 500 had gained 59.8%.[ii]

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Trade, Politics

Will a Possible Trump Steel Tariff Corrode Stocks?

By, 07/03/2017
Ratings644.351563

If you follow financial media lately, you might be under the impression you ought to be steeling yourself for some new protectionist measures from the Trump administration. Any day now Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is expected to announce findings from an investigation—permitted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—that could argue for tariffs on steel, allegedly based on national security concerns. This all plays right into longstanding fears that Trump is a trade disaster waiting to happen, triggering headlines claiming “Trump's plan to slap tariffs on steel imports carries big economic and political risks” and warning they “could set off global trade wars.” But despite the sensational rhetoric, steel tariffs are nothing new and, in our view, are unlikely to live up to pundits’ fears.

President Trump’s positions on trade have stoked these fears. On the campaign trail, Trump was a sharp critic of trade, in particular the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China. He frequently said on the stump he would use executive branch powers to “protect” American jobs and specifically that he believes steel imports are “killing our steelworkers and our steel companies.” (Hence, why we say Commerce’s investigation is allegedly based on national security concerns.) Trump’s protectionist rhetoric is a major reason why Wall Street feared him winning, and why some economists and pundits argue his policies are bad for the economy.

But regardless of those fears, what the Trump administration is proposing is nothing new. Basically every administration since President Lyndon Johnson has enacted some variety of steel tariff, even if the justification slightly differs now.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Commodities

Oil Drum Doldrums

By, 06/29/2017
Ratings923.86413

Last year, Energy was the MSCI World’s best-performing sector and ended 2016 on a relative upswing as investors cheered OPEC-led oil production cuts attempting to alleviate a supply glut. There was just one small thing folks didn’t anticipate: surging US shale oil production, which has offset OPEC’s weak efforts. By June 21, crude was down over -20% from a February high, and Energy stocks are down -10.1% year to date—the world’s worst sector.[i] Last year’s outperformance? Largely gone. Energy is now lagging cumulatively over the last year and a half—and is only ahead by a fraction of a percentage point since January 20, 2016—oil’s low.[ii] With hindsight, it’s clear 2016’s Energy outperformance was a countertrend rally in a longer-term slide. Although sentiment is catching up with reality, with a fundamental supply overhang unlikely to dwindle anytime soon, we think it’s still too early to load up on Energy stocks.

Oil’s latest downturn is an extension of a much larger slide that began mid-2014. (Exhibit 1) But our story begins long before then, in the 2000s, when sky-high oil prices incentivized US producers to invest in the technology[iii] they’d need to tap America’s vast shale oil reserves. Shale oil was expensive and difficult to access, but nosebleed oil prices made it worth the cost. It took a few years, but by 2012, the efforts were bearing fruit, and US oil production was soaring. For a while, oil bounced in a high range, as demand was also growing at a fast clip. But as China’s infrastructure buildouts slowed and Emerging Market growth rates cooled, so did energy demand growth. Meanwhile, supply kept soaring. By 2014, supply growth far exceeded demand growth, sending prices plunging to just $26 a barrel in January 2016.

Exhibit 1: Oil’s Wild Ride

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 Washington Post, 07/21/2017

MarketMinder's View: Said theory is that because there is less competition in some industries, companies have less incentive to invest in ways to entice customers, because said customers have nowhere to go. Without delving into minutiae, here are some thoughts on the general topic, and a question: Is business investment really as low as so many make it out to be these days? In dollar terms, it’s basically at all-time highs (there was a bit of an oil-related pullback last year, but it’s recovering). At 12.6% of total GDP in Q1, it is above its long-term average of 12.0% since 1947. As for our thoughts, this article dwells on the rise in dividends and stock buybacks as the result of companies’ supposed lack of investment drive or opportunities, but this isn’t really anything new. Buybacks have become more common as a tax-friendlier way to return profits to shareholders than dividends, but the practice is as old as the stock certificate. Some companies plow all profits back into the business. Others give them to shareholders, who invest them elsewhere. It isn’t like money paid to shareholders never goes back to the market. Finally, regarding more monopolies and less competition, we can see the argument there. But there are some counterpoints. For instance, a company whose name rhymes with Floogle basically has a monopoly on Internet search (really, when is the last time you Binged or Yahooed anything?), but they reorganized their entire company last year to account for the fact that research on self-driving cars and all manner of blue-sky ideas was increasingly dominating their business. Said differently, the lack of search competition led them to increase investment elsewhere. Another firm, which is named after fruit, returns a boatload of cash to shareholders and also manages to invest in product refreshes and top-secret projects. Other companies that might seem to have no competition domestically are multinational giants, competing with other firms for customers globally. Plenty of investment required there. Look, we agree with the larger theory that regulations can limit competition and there are probably some unnecessarily high barriers to entry to certain industries. We’re just skeptical the implications are as bad for America’s economy as hypothesized in the article.

By , The Washington Post, 07/21/2017

MarketMinder's View: And not just millennials. Anyone who socks away money with a long time horizon into a savings account misses the chance to grow their money over time and end up with a much bigger boodle in the end. Over 40 years, according to this analysis, the difference between putting 15% of an entry-level income in stocks and under the mattress is about $4 million. Yowza. Don’t just save now. If you have a long time horizon, invest now.

By , A Wealth of Common Sense, 07/21/2017

MarketMinder's View: By now, you’ve probably heard a few huge Tech(ish) stocks whose names form acronyms like FAAMG are driving a chunk of the S&P 500’s year to date returns. Far from being a worrying sign of market fragility, their ascendance—and the remarkable turnover among the index’s 10 largest companies over the year—is a good thing. It’s a sign that firms are competing and growing. Here is a deeper look at that and some other interesting observations.

By , The Wall Street Journal, 07/21/2017

MarketMinder's View: Any time people fear inflation, we’ll see pieces saying things like “new gold standard needed to prevent hyperinflation,” or “buy gold to prevent the destruction of your hard-earned dollars,” or or or. Welp, as this shows, that isn’t really the case. “St. Louis Fed economist Fernando Martin says inflation in the pre-Fed period was highly volatile as elected leaders periodic took the dollar off the gold standard and then re-established it. That created surges of inflation that were then followed by deflation. ‘The postwar period exhibits the same recurrence of high inflation episodes as the preceding period,’ Mr. Martin wrote. But without a gold standard forcing prices and wages lower at times, there was no deflation to pull the overall price level back down toward its historical average. Although average annual inflation since the war is higher, ‘it is not dramatically higher than in the pre-Fed period’ and the gold standard, Mr. Martin writes. Most importantly, inflation ‘volatility decreased tremendously’ and the nation has been spared painful, prolonged spates of deflation.” It isn’t unlike how having fixed currencies led to huge market distortions, devaluations and crises in (deep breath) Argentina, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Brazil and several others in the last 40 years. All were better off once they scrapped the fix and let the currency float freely.

Global Market Update

Market Wrap-Up, Thursday, July 21, 2017

Below is a market summary as of market close Thursday, July 20, 2017:

  • Global Equities: MSCI World (+0.2%)
  • US Equities: S&P 500 (-0.0%)
  • UK Equities: MSCI UK (+0.4%)
  • Best Country: The Netherlands (+1.4%)
  • Worst Country: New Zealand (-1.0%)
  • Best Sector: Telecommunication Services (+0.9%)
  • Worst Sector: Materials (-0.2%)

Bond Yields: 10-year US Treasury yields fell 0.01 percentage point to 2.26%.

 

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.