Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Across the Atlantic, Reality Check

How to Break the Brexit Blues

By, 11/17/2017
Ratings413.95122

Based on recent headlines, the UK might not seem ok. Brexit talks are plodding along, leaving business leaders antsy. Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May is facing a rebellion from her own ministers. Projections are bleak on the economic front. Sounds bad! However, in our view, many investors fail to appreciate the UK economy’s strength—a sign of sentiment’s disconnect from reality—which sets up bullish upside surprise.

Brexit and its alleged negative consequences continue influencing just about every major economic and political UK narrative. Talks between UK and EU negotiators seem constantly stalled, frustrating both pols and businesses alike. Domestically, controversy has embroiled UK politics. Two ministers resigned from May’s government recently, prompting speculation that the prime minister has lost control—and rumblings of a leadership challenge have started. 20 Tory MPs have also threatened to revolt against a bill enshrining March 29, 2019 in UK law as the official EU exit date.

Beyond these developments, policymakers and experts bemoan the state of the UK economy. BoE Governor and metaphorical “unreliable boyfriend” Mark Carney said the economy would be “booming” if it wasn’t for Brexit. Analysts worry inflation’s 3.0% y/y rise in October—a repeat of September’s rate, which was the highest in five years—could choke consumer spending, especially since wages rose only 2.2% y/y in the same month (implying they fell in real terms). UK retail sales rose 0.3% m/m in October, beating expectations, but headlines dwelled on the first year-over-year contraction in four years.[i] UK industries have also expressed concern future trade deals could hurt them significantly in the long term. The underlying theme: Things are bad now, and they will only get worse when the UK actually exits.

Research Analysis

Pete Michel
Into Perspective

About That High Yield Selloff

By, 11/17/2017
Ratings524.009615

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

Is it over for high-yield bonds? Is their selloff the canary in the coalmine for stocks? These questions preoccupied investors as high-yield bonds fell in recent days, reminding some of early 2016’s weakness. However, like that selloff, this one is mostly concentrated in one sector. Moreover, the move in high-yield spreads is in line with other small moves we’ve seen in the recent past, and the high-yield market appears to be functioning fine despite liquidity concerns. And as always, bond and stock markets are similarly liquid and price in widely known information simultaneously. One can’t be a canary in the coalmine for the other. Markets are too efficient.

While January 2016’s high-yield selloff was centered in the Energy sector, this one is largely concentrated in Telecom, which accounts for about 10% of the high-yield market by par value. While triggers are always difficult (and usually impossible) to pinpoint, this one began as the T-Mobile and Sprint merger fell apart. Both companies are big junk bond issuers with sizable maturities coming due in the next few years. Weak Q3 earnings from other Telecom firms also contributed to the weakness. The Senate’s proposal to delay the corporate tax cut until 2019 may also have contributed, as well as a general realization by investors a tax bill won’t be as easy to pass as some presumed—potentially impacting future debt issuance. All those factors plus more likely contribute to a sudden slight souring of sentiment, hitting high yields.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Finance Theory, Forecasting

Volatility (or Lack Thereof) Isn’t Predictive

By, 11/16/2017

It has been 50 trading days since the S&P 500 fell more than -0.5% in a day.[i] Do you know where your children are? While it’s tempting to think danger lurks under still waters—and financial media provide prompts aplenty—calm periods don’t portend big price movements ahead. Nor do they herald further tranquility. Volatility—low or high; up or down—is incapable of foretelling the future.

Low volatility spans the world. US volatility is low whether you measure it by daily percent moves or the VIX’s “options-implied”[ii] volatility. US stocks’ streak without a half-percent decline is the longest since 1968. Moreover, the S&P 500 has risen every month year to date on a total return basis, a first-ever.[iii] October registered the VIX’s lowest monthly average on record (since 1990). Outside America, European stocks’ VIX—VStoxx—also hit record lows. Japan’s Topix index hadn’t fallen by -0.4% or more in 31 trading days until a recent spate of volatility last Friday. Up to then, the Nikkei VIX was near its lowest in a dozen years. Meanwhile, the MSCI All-Country World Index’s[iv] daily percent moves haven’t exceeded half a percent for a couple weeks. That’s some unvolatility! But none of this tells you about future moves. Stocks aren’t serially correlated. Past price movements, whether volatile or not, don’t affect what happens next.[v] Volatility just describes what already happened. It is a measure of past performance, which is never predictive.

Some argue sanguine stocks in the face of seeming threats—geopolitical, political, central bank-related or otherwise—are dangerously complacent. But markets deal efficiently with all widely known information, including headline fears. Yes, they can be irrational in the short term. But nothing widely feared today is new. Nor should stocks have some automatic reaction to any of the day’s news. While headlines dwell on an event or two, stocks consider everything that’s going on. What if all the other (good) variables simply outweigh whatever headlines are scared of? What if what people don’t talk about happens to be more meaningful (and positive) for future corporate profits?

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Media Hype/Myths

The Art of Not Actually Scrapping Trade Deals

By, 11/16/2017
Ratings284.392857

Here are some headlines from about a year ago:

These stories aren’t cherry-picked—in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s surprise US presidential election win, concerns about an approaching wave of protectionism were everywhere. Yet a year later, he hasn’t actually done much on the trade front. To us, this shows the importance of not letting campaign trail talk drive investment decision-making.

When Trump won, investors were largely fearful. Markets generally prefer freer trade, but Trump had talked a big protectionist game during the campaign. He declared other countries are “killing us on trade,” pronounced NAFTA the “worst deal ever” and promised to label China a “currency manipulator” on “day one” of his presidency.[i] Soon after taking office, President Trump appeared to fulfill the worst fears by withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a pending free-trade agreement between America and 11 other nations. But the TPP torpedoing was mostly symbolic. The agreement was likely dead in the water anyway, with both Trump and Hillary Clinton opposed, insufficient popular or legislative support in the US, and ratification roadblocks in other participating countries.

Commentary

Elisabeth Dellinger
Currencies

A Whole Latte Nonsense About the Dollar

By, 11/10/2017
Ratings824.134146


Which one of these is overvalued? Photo by Elisabeth Dellinger.

Did you hear? The US dollar is simultaneously “11% overvalued” and “5% undervalued.” Weird, right? Well those are the competing conclusions of just two of the many, many outfits spending time trying to calculate whether the dollar is too high, too low or just right. It is largely a fruitless effort: In currencies, there is no such thing as some inherent fair value. The value of a free-floating currency, always and everywhere, is what the market says it is.

Thursday’s online edition of The Wall Street Journal included a rather entertaining chart showing five supranational organizations’ estimates of whether 17 major global currencies are over- or under-valued. It has us half-wondering if people forget currencies trade in pairs, with movement heavily influenced by moves in expected interest rates. Given currencies’ tendency to move with relative interest rates, is the dollar really 11% overvalued, as the Council on Foreign Relations estimates, when US interest rates are among the developed world’s highest? With most observers expecting the Fed to keep gradually hiking interest rates? Or is the market perhaps rationally pricing in those interest rate expectations?[i]

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
GDP

The Global Economy Keeps on Growing

By, 11/08/2017
Ratings674.223881

Halfway through Q4, countries are releasing Q3 GDP numbers and many research outlets happily note economies are finally growing in sync. Huzzah! Granted, broad-based global growth isn’t necessary for stocks to rise higher—this bull market has run eight years despite weak spots and regional contractions—but it shows how far the expansion has come. While backward-looking, these GDP reports show the global economy was in solid shape entering Q4. More investors realizing this reality could contribute to warming investor sentiment—a bullish development.

North America Is Dealing With Some Natural Disasters

US Q3 GDP rose 3.0% annualized, a smidge below Q2’s 3.1%—the first back-to-back quarters of 3% growth in three years. While headlines called this “impressive growth despite hurricanes,” key areas experienced slowdowns. For example, personal consumption expenditures slowed to 2.4% from Q2’s 3.3%, and trade was also weaker: Exports rose 2.3% and imports contracted -0.8% (compared to Q2’s respective 3.5% and 1.5% rates). This import contraction actually contributes to a higher headline GDP number—a statistical quirk as GDP calculates trade as net exports (exports – imports)—which misses the fact imports represent domestic demand.   

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Taxes

Don’t Let the House’s Tax Plan Tax Your Nerves

By, 11/06/2017
Ratings1714.163743

They say life’s only certainties are death and taxes, but we’d add a third: Politicians endlessly debating taxes. This is why we were half-tempted not to write up the House GOP’s shiny new tax proposal for you, dear readers: As much as there is to discuss, the likelihood tax reform happens exactly as this bill envisions is somewhere between zero and close-to-zero. Senate Republicans are set to release their own plan in the next week or two, and both chambers will probably tear into each bill during the legislative process. The final tax bill—if it even gets that far—could have little resemblance to what the House released. And, of course, even that would be subject to debate and change. Hence, we caution anyone against thinking any of this is likely to come to fruition. But what we can do now is use this proposal to illustrate why neither tax hikes nor tax cuts have a predetermined economic or market impact. Simply exploring the fact that all tax changes—whether advertised as hikes or cuts—create winners and losers can help investors understand why there is never much material market reaction. So let’s dive in.

As you have probably seen from the media’s deluge of coverage, the House’s tax plan aims to cut corporate tax rates, adjust the incentives for US-based firms with operations overseas, and streamline the personal income tax code. The corporate tax rate would fall from 35% to 20%, below the international average, but most of the deductions firms use to avoid paying that 35% rate would go away. So-called “pass through” corporations, which includes most small businesses, would see their headline tax rate drop from 39.6% to 25%. Taxation of most foreign profits would cease, replacing the bizarre system where firms pay foreign taxes up-front and defer US taxes until they repatriate the profits. In theory, that removes the incentive to park cash overseas, helping money move more freely. But it isn’t a free lunch: Firms’ “high-profit foreign subsidiaries” (whatever that means) would face a 10% tax.

The personal income tax changes are more complex. Essentially, they reduce the number of tax bands from seven to four, eliminate most itemized deductions, nearly double the standard deduction, and remove the personal exemption. To save three thousand words, here are three pictures.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Monetary Policy

Mr. Ordinary and the Wizards of Constitution Avenue

By, 11/03/2017
Ratings723.930556


Photo by traveler1116/iStock by Getty Images.

The wait is finally over! After months of speculation and DC cocktail bar chatter, President Trump has named his pick for Fed head: Jerome Powell, currently a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. The Wall Street Journal calls him “Mr. Ordinary,” which is a refreshing change from nicknames implying magic videogame powers, like “Super Mario” Draghi at the ECB or former Fed head “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke. Wall Street-types are already cheering him as more pro-market than his soon-to-be predecessor, economist Janet Yellen, thanks to his private equity background. Those hoping for deregulation like that he served in George H.W. Bush’s Treasury. Republicans like him because he is a Republican. Yet many also view him as being a lot like Yellen, implying he’ll love low rates and extend the status quo. Those are all opinions. Maybe they are valid! But it’s impossible to know today. What central bankers say before taking the helm and do afterward are often quite different, and you can’t know in advance whether it will be “good different” or “bad different.” All we can do is weigh their decisions as they make them.

Fed-watchers will argue you can find clues on Powell’s monetary policy preferences from his public speeches, past writings, interest rate votes and occasional mentions in Fed minutes. We guess the last two, at least, measure actions (to an extent). But they’re incomplete. People thought they had a good read on Yellen when she took office since she had been at the Fed for years, but in reality, we knew next to nothing. This is the Fed’s fault: They keep full transcripts of every meeting and conference call, which would give investors (and senators) a treasure trove of insight—not just into their actions and opinions, but also into the logic, evidence, biases and mindset behind them. Unfortunately, the Fed releases these at a five-year lag.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Others

Mutual Fund Ratings and Past Returns

By, 11/03/2017
Ratings1024.372549

Most people prefer to watch movies that got two thumbs up[i] from the critics. The best restaurants in the world get Michelin stars. Critics award wine “points.” Online shoppers buy top-rated products from top-rated sellers. Higher ratings mean better products, right? So it’s no surprise folks also seek out investments with high ratings—whether measured in stars, medals, “buy” recommendations or something else. In our view, however, relying on these ratings is misguided: Fund ratings don’t aid investors’ decisions, as they are mostly an incomplete analysis of past returns—not predictive.

This isn’t just our opinion. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found Morningstar mutual fund ratings don’t predict future ratings or returns for said mutual funds.[ii] Highly rated funds usually fall back to earth and/or disappear. To quote:

“Of funds awarded a coveted five-star overall rating, only 12% did well enough over the next five years to earn a top rating for that period; 10% performed so poorly they were branded with a rock-bottom one-star rating. … The Journal’s analysis found that most five-star funds perform somewhat better than lower-rated ones, yet on the average, five-star funds eventually turn into merely ordinary performers.”

Research Analysis

Christo Barker

Meanwhile, Outside Catalonia

By, 10/30/2017


With so much media coverage last week over Catalonia and the well telegraphed non-event that was the ECB meeting, some other noteworthy political developments in the eurozone seemingly fell on deaf ears. France passed sizeable tax cuts and Italy passed long-rumored electoral reforms. While neither fundamentally changes our bright outlook for eurozone stocks, they represent more falling uncertainty and—especially in France—show how sentiment in the eurozone is still playing catch-up.

 

France

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Taxes

Don’t Let the House’s Tax Plan Tax Your Nerves

By, 11/06/2017
Ratings1714.163743

They say life’s only certainties are death and taxes, but we’d add a third: Politicians endlessly debating taxes. This is why we were half-tempted not to write up the House GOP’s shiny new tax proposal for you, dear readers: As much as there is to discuss, the likelihood tax reform happens exactly as this bill envisions is somewhere between zero and close-to-zero. Senate Republicans are set to release their own plan in the next week or two, and both chambers will probably tear into each bill during the legislative process. The final tax bill—if it even gets that far—could have little resemblance to what the House released. And, of course, even that would be subject to debate and change. Hence, we caution anyone against thinking any of this is likely to come to fruition. But what we can do now is use this proposal to illustrate why neither tax hikes nor tax cuts have a predetermined economic or market impact. Simply exploring the fact that all tax changes—whether advertised as hikes or cuts—create winners and losers can help investors understand why there is never much material market reaction. So let’s dive in.

As you have probably seen from the media’s deluge of coverage, the House’s tax plan aims to cut corporate tax rates, adjust the incentives for US-based firms with operations overseas, and streamline the personal income tax code. The corporate tax rate would fall from 35% to 20%, below the international average, but most of the deductions firms use to avoid paying that 35% rate would go away. So-called “pass through” corporations, which includes most small businesses, would see their headline tax rate drop from 39.6% to 25%. Taxation of most foreign profits would cease, replacing the bizarre system where firms pay foreign taxes up-front and defer US taxes until they repatriate the profits. In theory, that removes the incentive to park cash overseas, helping money move more freely. But it isn’t a free lunch: Firms’ “high-profit foreign subsidiaries” (whatever that means) would face a 10% tax.

The personal income tax changes are more complex. Essentially, they reduce the number of tax bands from seven to four, eliminate most itemized deductions, nearly double the standard deduction, and remove the personal exemption. To save three thousand words, here are three pictures.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Monetary Policy

Mr. Ordinary and the Wizards of Constitution Avenue

By, 11/03/2017
Ratings723.930556


Photo by traveler1116/iStock by Getty Images.

The wait is finally over! After months of speculation and DC cocktail bar chatter, President Trump has named his pick for Fed head: Jerome Powell, currently a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. The Wall Street Journal calls him “Mr. Ordinary,” which is a refreshing change from nicknames implying magic videogame powers, like “Super Mario” Draghi at the ECB or former Fed head “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke. Wall Street-types are already cheering him as more pro-market than his soon-to-be predecessor, economist Janet Yellen, thanks to his private equity background. Those hoping for deregulation like that he served in George H.W. Bush’s Treasury. Republicans like him because he is a Republican. Yet many also view him as being a lot like Yellen, implying he’ll love low rates and extend the status quo. Those are all opinions. Maybe they are valid! But it’s impossible to know today. What central bankers say before taking the helm and do afterward are often quite different, and you can’t know in advance whether it will be “good different” or “bad different.” All we can do is weigh their decisions as they make them.

Fed-watchers will argue you can find clues on Powell’s monetary policy preferences from his public speeches, past writings, interest rate votes and occasional mentions in Fed minutes. We guess the last two, at least, measure actions (to an extent). But they’re incomplete. People thought they had a good read on Yellen when she took office since she had been at the Fed for years, but in reality, we knew next to nothing. This is the Fed’s fault: They keep full transcripts of every meeting and conference call, which would give investors (and senators) a treasure trove of insight—not just into their actions and opinions, but also into the logic, evidence, biases and mindset behind them. Unfortunately, the Fed releases these at a five-year lag.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Others

Mutual Fund Ratings and Past Returns

By, 11/03/2017
Ratings1024.372549

Most people prefer to watch movies that got two thumbs up[i] from the critics. The best restaurants in the world get Michelin stars. Critics award wine “points.” Online shoppers buy top-rated products from top-rated sellers. Higher ratings mean better products, right? So it’s no surprise folks also seek out investments with high ratings—whether measured in stars, medals, “buy” recommendations or something else. In our view, however, relying on these ratings is misguided: Fund ratings don’t aid investors’ decisions, as they are mostly an incomplete analysis of past returns—not predictive.

This isn’t just our opinion. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found Morningstar mutual fund ratings don’t predict future ratings or returns for said mutual funds.[ii] Highly rated funds usually fall back to earth and/or disappear. To quote:

“Of funds awarded a coveted five-star overall rating, only 12% did well enough over the next five years to earn a top rating for that period; 10% performed so poorly they were branded with a rock-bottom one-star rating. … The Journal’s analysis found that most five-star funds perform somewhat better than lower-rated ones, yet on the average, five-star funds eventually turn into merely ordinary performers.”

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Interest Rates, Market Cycles, Into Perspective

Making Sense of Credit Spreads

By, 10/27/2017
Ratings824.262195

This summer, former Fed head Alan Greenspan gave voice to many folks’ fears by stating bond markets were frothy—a bubble was “about to break.” In the intervening two months, headlines piled on, with most pointing to super-low corporate and high-yield bond interest rates as their evidence. This, they presume, has facilitated a record year of corporate bond issuance. But rates alone don’t tell the whole story. Credit spreads provide a frame of reference and a more complete picture when evaluating bond markets. Currently, yield spreads are somewhat tight, but not abnormally so: Tightening credit spreads are normal at this point in the market cycle and can persist for years.

Credit spreads—the difference in yield between government bonds and corporates of the same maturity—are closely watched by bond investors. Corporate bonds nearly always yield more than high-quality sovereign debt—since companies can’t print money and don’t have the ability to tax, they are seen as carrying more default risk. But the perception of risk fluctuates during the market cycle—that’s where credit spreads come in. When spreads are widening, investors are demanding extra compensation for corporates’ increased risk of default—which often coincides with equity bear markets.

The flipside is also true. During expansion, spreads generally tighten across the credit spectrum—from the most highly rated corporates to high-yield or “junk” bonds. Exhibit 1 shows high-yield and corporate spreads during the past couple market cycles. For all the talk of a “bond bubble,” which implies irrational demand and unsupported high prices, spreads were lower for much of the 20022007 equity bull market and the mid-to-late 1990s. Investors then were bidding corporate bonds even higher, relative to Treasurys … soooooo, were bonds in a bubble then, too? Or is it perhaps just normal for credit spreads to narrow as an expansion runs on and investors gain confidence in corporations’ abilities to honor their debts?

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Monetary Policy

Word Games With ECB Head Mario Draghi

By, 10/27/2017
Ratings194.342105

If you buy the major media narrative, Thursday morning ECB head Mario Draghi made a watershed announcement. The bank announced it would reduce—taper!—monthly bond purchases from its present €60 billion pace to €30 billion beginning in January 2018. But they also said they would extend the program’s life from its previously scheduled January end to September 2018. Media further latched onto some fuzzy, hedgy language[i] in Draghi’s statement that suggested future policy would be (in Fedspeak) data dependent.[ii] Stocks rose, which media interpreted as markets celebrating the “dovish” beginning of the ECB’s taper. To us, that's a bit perplexing. We never thought ECB tapering was a negative—in our view, that got the impact of quantitative easing (QE) backwards. Moreover, here is some breaking news from 11 months ago: This isn’t new. The ECB did the same thing last December—they just denied it was a taper then, when they didn’t now.

The reason why tapering didn’t—and shouldn’t—torpedo stocks is effectively two-fold: One, the ECB telegraphed this move months ago. Markets don’t wait around for policy announcements to start acting on them—markets anticipate. The fact the ECB did what it hinted at made this largely a yawn. Second, in our view, QE never supported stocks and the economy the way many presumed. While central bankers talked up this “stimulus,” it really discouraged lending. Banks borrow short term and lend long, profiting off the difference (or spread) between them. QE’s long-term bond buying depressed yields. With short-term rates super low already, their buying narrowed the gap between the two. Less profitable lending meant less plentiful lending. People respond to incentives.

By now, you’d think most would have caught on to the notion that taper fears are misplaced. We’ve already seen the US not only taper QE (meaning they reduced the rate of bond purchases), but begin unwinding it slowly.[iii] No calamity ensued; lending sped; the economy grew; stocks rose. Same deal for the UK. Japan’s asset purchases have also (quietly) slowed of late, although BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda hasn’t called it a taper.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics, Reality Check

Shut Down Shutdown Fears

By, 10/26/2017

Editors’ Note: Our discussion of politics is focused purely on potential market impact and is designed to be nonpartisan. Stocks don’t favor any party, and partisan ideology invites bias—dangerous in investing.

With Halloween around the corner, frightful things seemingly abound. A ghost from 2013 lurks in the not-too-distant future: a government shutdown. Eek! Both congresspeople and the president alike have hinted at one recently. If the impasse persists—as some headlines are forecasting—the federal government will close a bunch of agencies’ doors come December 8. But before you start worrying, here is a friendly reminder: government shutdowns don’t doom stocks, as markets can do just fine even if Washington decides to close up shop for a bit.

Shutdown chatter has swirled for most of this year as Congress toyed with government funding. Lawmakers reached a late agreement and kicked the can back in May. The White House and congressional leaders—including some notable Democrats—then agreed to a deal in September that kept the government funded through early December. With that deadline now only weeks away, Congress is (unsurprisingly) at odds over several issues, including a border wall, immigration, health care subsidies and hurricane relief. Coming to terms on a spending bill may be a tall order—and no deal means a shutdown.

Research Analysis

Christo Barker
Into Perspective, Debt

Is China Experiencing the World's Biggest Credit Bubble?

By, 09/05/2017
Ratings794.126582

China credit bubble concerns are one of the oldest, most recycled false fears of today’s bull market. Bubble-warning headlines from seven years ago could run today with minimal changes. However, despite numerous examples of Chinese credit not being properly allocated—a side effect of the government’s centralized control—no bubble has burst yet. Unless a massive negative surprise creates a wallop or euphoria creeps back into markets, the likelihood a Chinese credit bubble pops and roils the economy—with ill effects spreading globally—in the immediate future is low, in my view.

To understand why Chinese credit bubble fears are overwrought, investors must first understand some critical differences between how credit works in China’s centralized, government-steered economy and a typical free market economy (like the US). China’s Communist Party exhibits heavy control over economic areas like capital flows, currency strength, interest rates and money supply. This desire for control—particularly over money supply—means China relies on banks to provide the majority of credit access (67% compared to 17% in the US[i]). In comparison, entities in the US have more options thanks to America’s deep, robust capital markets (e.g., bond, asset-backed security, short-term commercial paper and repo markets).

While bank-driven credit gives the government more control over money supply, Chinese banks must make loans that capital markets would typically underwrite in the US. For example, Chinese banks make lots of loans to the government, but in the US, the federal government can issue Treasurys while states and cities float muni bonds. Also in the US, mortgage and asset-backed securities comprise a nearly $11 trillion market—in China, this secondary market doesn’t exist. China’s bank dependency inflates the size of those institutions’ balance sheets, making them look scary and bubblicious. However, aggregating the total outstanding credit—the sum of all debt from capital markets and loans—for China and the US gives a better apples-to-apples comparison. When scaled to GDP, China’s total outstanding credit is actually lower than the US’s. (Exhibit 1)

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Market Insights Podcast: North Korea Update – August 2017

By, 08/30/2017
Ratings263.769231

In this podcast, Communications Group Manager Naj Srinivas speaks with Content Analyst and MarketMinder Editor Elisabeth Dellinger about recent tensions between the US and North Korea and our current outlook.

Time stamps:

Research Analysis

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

Market Insights Podcast Emerging Markets Update-June 2017

By, 06/23/2017
Ratings273.925926

In this podcast, Communications Group Manager Naj Srinivas speaks with Research Analyst Scott Botterman about recent developments within Emerging Markets and our current outlook.

0:50 – MSCI announces Chinese A shares to be included in Emerging Markets index

Research Analysis

Christo Barker
Into Perspective

Victory to En Marche!

By, 06/19/2017
Ratings104.15

The fourth and final round of French national elections concluded over the weekend, clearing a major milestone in the year of falling political uncertainty. President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist La République En Marche! party and its ally, the Democratic Movement (MoDem), gained a clear majority in the National Assembly after winning 61% of the seats (350 of 577) in the second round of the French parliamentary election. (Exhibit 1)

At a surface level, this result technically reduces political gridlock in France. However, the En Marche party is itself an exercise in gridlock, as it is essentially a blend of center-left and center-right politicians. It includes lawmakers that defected from both of the traditional Socialist and Republican Parties. A centrist coalition likely pursues more moderate policies aimed at incremental change rather than broad, sweeping legislation with the potential to really shock markets. For example, the party’s primary policies likely include reforming labor laws, cutting corporate taxes, reducing a bloated civil sector and promoting entrepreneurship. Yet none of the proposals unveiled thus far appear terribly radical. Labor market reforms, for example, appear to dance around third rails like France’s 35-hour workweek. Plus, En Marche is also just over a year old, and over half of its National Assembly members haven’t held any political office before. How well these political novices work with the old guard—and how well the center-right and center-left can agree on policy details—will be worth monitoring, but intraparty gridlock likely creates additional hurdles to legislation.

While one could argue French gridlock could dash hopes for big pro-business reforms, potentially setting up stocks for disappointment, Macron’s relatively watered-down agenda is already widely known. Moreover, having less potential for radical legislation means less chance for new laws to create winners and losers, which reduces one source of risk for markets.  

Subscribe

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

What We're Reading

By , Financial Post, 11/17/2017

MarketMinder's View: This article is spot on—a great, very complete discussion of why we believe IPOs are suboptimal investments. Here is a salient snippet previewing the argument: “The monetary incentives in place for sellers and their agents to inflate IPO prices, the risk of the seller being better informed about a company’s prospects than the buyer, the need for management to demonstrate credibility in setting performance targets and the risk of adverse selection, sometimes known as ‘the winner’s curse’ all contribute to this dramatic and consistent underperformance of IPOs in their rookie year.” In short, as Ken Fisher is fond of saying, IPO actually stands for “It’s Probably Overpriced.”

By , Reuters, 11/17/2017

MarketMinder's View: There is a lot going on in this article, much more than we have space to discuss here. So we’ll just say it isn’t all wrongheaded. However, the large part dealing with rising wealth supposedly prolonging equities’ rise is entirely backwards. You see, much of the increase in global wealth is because of global equity markets’ rise. Past performance doesn’t predict—that stocks rose doesn’t mean they will continue to. This basically amounts to a thesis that we think is rightly bullish but for the wrong reasons. (Sad!) That being said, the passages discussing earnings growth, growing optimism and tight equity supply are a lot closer to correct, in our view.

By , The Wall Street Journal, 11/17/2017

MarketMinder's View: “Private or abroad” is the answer to the titular question, though our beef is more with the article’s subject matter, which argues the decline in the number of publicly traded US firms is bad for investors. The logic: Folks have fewer opportunities to invest in new firms with super-duper long-term growth potential (a la a company whose name rhymes with “glamazon”), and the rise of index investing is reducing opportunities to outperform with individual stocks. We see a few things wrong with that. One, investing in high-flying startups isn’t necessary to do well over time. Two, it’s a myth that only small and microcaps have long-term potential (and their demise is greatly exaggerated). Large cap and growth-oriented stocks lead plenty of the time. Everything has its day in the sun and the rain. Three, ETFs and mutual funds combined own only 30% of the entire market—and index funds comprise only a portion of mutual funds’ share. In other words, the bulk of investors—whether individual, institutional or fund manager—are making decisions about individual stocks every day. Four, a lot of those ETFs are bizarre active strategies masquerading as passive. Besides, securities pricing is always determined by supply and demand. In the short run, demand rules. But in the longer term, supply reigns supreme. Reduced supply isn’t bad for stock market returns—it’s good. The premise here is simply flawed.

By , The Telegraph, 11/17/2017

MarketMinder's View: Well, maybe! But not because of less “slack” in global markets. Whether we’re looking globally or locally, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon—too much money chasing too few goods and services. If loan and money supply growth accelerate globally, then yah, we could have an inflation pickup. But we haven’t seen evidence that is happening yet, and with the US yield curve flattening over the last year, it is difficult to envision a fully global lending blitz happening anytime soon. Never say never, but we’d expect the global yield curve to steepen before lending and money supply boom.

Global Market Update

Market Wrap-Up, Friday, November 17, 2017

Below is a market summary as of market close on Friday, November 17, 2017:

  • Global Equities: MSCI World (-0.1%)
  • US Equities: S&P 500 (-0.3%)
  • UK Equities: MSCI UK (-0.0%)
  • Best Country: Singapore (+1.5%)
  • Worst Country: Sweden (-1.5%)
  • Best Sector: Consumer Discretionary (+0.4%)
  • Worst Sector: Utilities (-0.9%)

Bond Yields: 10-year US Treasury yields fell 0.01 percentage point to 2.35%.

 

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.