Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
The Global View

The Unnecessary $2 Trillion Global Stimulus Economic Benefit Concert

By, 11/21/2014
Ratings103.65

Are the world economy’s lights flashing red or green? Photo by David Arthur/Getty Images.

Here is a memo for the G-20: The global economy is actually growing.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Into Perspective

Clearing Up Bond Trading

By, 11/20/2014
Ratings143.678571

Here is a simple question that often doesn’t have a simple answer: How much did you pay to buy that bond? This week, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) proposed amendments to their current rules that seek to make that answer easier to come by, clarifying transaction costs for municipal, corporate and agency debt securities. Their plan is a step in the right direction, in our view, but the proposed rules are still less clear than they could otherwise be.

The reason it isn’t always easy to know what you as a retail investor paid for a bond is due to  the mechanics of bond trading. With most non-Treasury bonds, your buy order must be submitted to a brokerage firm. That firm can then act in one of two capacities. The first is agent, in which the firm takes your order and seeks out the desired bonds, helping execute the trade on your behalf. (Exhibit 1) This isn’t terribly dissimilar from equity trading, in which the firm takes your order and seeks to match it with someone selling similar securities in a market or exchange. In such transactions, fees are usually disclosed plainly. However, most bond trades don’t happen this way. Most are executed with the firm taking your order acting as principal, which basically means they sell you bonds from their inventory. (Exhibit 2)They typically do not charge a commission per se, so your trade confirmation doesn’t show you an account of the broker fees involved.

Now, before you presume this means, “Most bond buying is free! Wheeeeee!” consider: Instead of commissions, firms acting as principal simply mark up the bond price (or down, if you’re selling). They are required to report only the price you paid for the bond and some description of the security, including basic information like its yield. Heck, sometimes firms even blur the line between agency and principal, selling you bonds they are actively trading in, so their “inventory” isn’t exactly bonds sitting on a dusty shelf. They may sell you bonds they just bought (plus a markup)—so-called “riskless principal” transactions. [i]

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
The Global View

Is the World Turning Japanese?

By, 11/19/2014

Monday’s news of Japan falling back into recession continued spurring headlines Tuesday, albeit of a different flavor. They stopped expressing shock at Abenomics’ inability to spur growth and started fearing the world is turning Japanese too—and about to take stocks down with it. However, we humbly suggest the issues hamstringing Japan are the same ones that led to its lost decade. That didn’t go global, and we see little reason to think this time will be different.[i]

Japan’s struggles stem from its … ummm … unique take on capitalism, which is rather more mercantilist than Smithian.[ii] The result: deep structural issues like waning productivity, narrow labor markets, protectionist trade policy and an uncompetitive corporate sector dominated by large, horizontally integrated keiretsu—to name just a few (we could go on). These are supposedly in Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s crosshairs, the target of long-promised but undelivered structural reforms.

But most pundits don’t acknowledge how much these structural issues muffle Japanese growth, arguing the lost decade[iii] was a product of deflation and demographics. They don’t acknowledge deflation is a signal—not a cause—of deeper problems. To the extent demographic issues are problematic, they are no match for a free, open economy. From this misdiagnosis, the experts hunt for the next economy ripe for its own “lost decade.” Today’s popular target: the eurozone.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
GDP

Sinking Fortunes in the Land of the Rising Sun

By, 11/18/2014
Ratings253.76

No word on whether Australian PM Tony Abbott was giving Japanese PM Shinzo Abe election tips or just making a funny. Maybe both? Photo by Ian Waldie, Pool/Getty Images.

Pop quiz: What do you get when you hit a struggling country with higher prices and a three percentage point sales tax hike? Give up? Recession! At least, according to Japanese GDP released Monday that’s what Japan got, with the second straight GDP contraction placing the archipelago into recession by one common definition. Globally, this doesn’t mean a ton—growth elsewhere is more than enough to offset Japan’s -1.6% annualized Q3 drop. But the causes and domestic fallout reiterate why we’ve long thought investors’ expectations for Japan are too high and better opportunities lie elsewhere.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Across the Atlantic, GDP, Investor Sentiment

The Eurozone’s Emerging Market Emerges, and Other Fun Q3 GDP Factoids

By, 11/17/2014
Ratings364.402778


Eurozone officials should really update this scuplture, as it is six stars short of the 18 current members. Actually, maybe they should just wait until 2015 and bring it to 19 reflecting Lithuania's membership. Photo by Getty Images/Bloomberg.

Preliminary Q3 2014 eurozone GDP hit Friday morning, and the data show the 18-nation bloc grew 0.2% q/q (0.6% annualized), beating analysts’ estimates calling for 0.1% q/q growth. This comes a day after US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew wagged an accusatory finger at European leadership, claiming all that severe austerity they allegedly enforced at Germany’s insistence risks a “lost decade.” The deflationary depression drumbeat continued even after these better-than-expected growth data, with most claiming growth will prove “insufficient to create jobs,” too weak to forestall deflation, too sluggish to reduce debt and, perhaps most interestingly for investors, that core (French and German) weakness will prove too powerful for the rebounding periphery to offset. This last part is something of a sentiment sign-of-the-times worth noting.

First, some fun factoids:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Emerging Markets, Into Perspective

All Aboard the Through Train?

By, 11/14/2014
Ratings294.137931

Starting Monday, foreign investors will have unprecedented access to mainland  Chinese stocks courtesy of the delightfully named “through train” program, which lets foreigners buy “selected” Chinese A-shares traded on the Shanghai exchange through Hong Kong brokerages. Many are cheery about the prospect of new demand worth tens of billions of dollars pushing Chinese stocks higher. But before you choo-choo your way over, we’d encourage you to keep a rational perspective. China has plenty going for it, but anyone expecting the through train to be the ticket to sky-high returns might end up a tad disappointed.

In recent years, Chinese A-shares haven’t quite reflected the economy’s rapid growth rate. They boomed at times during the 2000s bull market, but as Exhibit 1 shows, this was short-lived and out of step with the global bull that began in 2003. As of Thursday’s close, A-shares were still 36% under their 1/14/2008 peak. Meanwhile, China’s economy kept on chugging, taking Japan’s place as the world’s second biggest. Not that stocks and GDP should move one-to-one—that isn’t how it works ever. But it underscores how China’s political climate, capital market controls and sentiment have offset many an economic tailwind.

Exhibit 1: Chinese A-Shares

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics

What to Expect from Lame-Duck Season

By, 11/13/2014
Ratings453.844445


President Obama and Congressional leaders enjoy a friendly post-midterm lunch. Photo by Dennis Brack/Pool via Bloomberg.

Editors’ Note: Our discussion of politics and elections is purely focused on potential market impact. Stocks favor neither party. Believing in the market/economic superiority of one group of politicians over another can invite bias—a source of significant investment errors.

“What can we expect from the next Congress?” Over a week after midterms, speculation still hogs headlines. The latest: Some say this year’s lame duck session is the acid test. If the long-bickering, do-nothing, 113th Congress can shake hands and pass a raft of measures, we’ll know the 114th can break the ice, too. And if not? Don’t expect bipartisan compromise the next two years. But this overlooks what Congress usually does during the two-month purgatory between the election and when the guard changes in January. We believe investors should expect a typical lame-duck session, which doesn’t really indicate much of anything about what follows.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Personal Finance

Risky Business

By, 11/12/2014
Ratings583.982759


There is more risk than just volatility (and a board game). Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images.

Risk. This four letter word both tempts and terrifies investors. Some folks think it’s the ticket to sky-high returns. Others find it scary or uncomfortable. Both mentalities lead many to an effort to measure it. Because if you can quantify something (e.g. this stock is risky based on this metric), you can understand what you’re dealing with—and understanding things is nice. Don’t want much risk? Avoid the thing with the higher risk number! But as one stellar paper we recently read thoroughly explained, you can’t reduce investment risk to a single number or set of figures. Most investment risks aren’t actually quantifiable. Believing they are can lead to truly risky portfolio decisions. 

When quantifying “risk,” many folks confuse volatility with risk. These aren’t synonymous. Volatility—price movement down and up—can be tracked, measured and plotted relative to an index. Short-term volatility reminds us of the risk of loss that comes with an asset, but it doesn’t quantify risk. Measures like standard deviation, beta and the Sharpe Ratio[i] tell you how much something moved (note: past tense) relative to the market—backward-looking descriptions of price movement, not very helpful in assessing future volatility or performance. They are not permanent attributes of a strategy, security, fund, manager, tactic or squirrel. (Just kidding. Beta may be a permanent attribute of squirrels.) They do not necessarily differentiate between more and less risky strategies—especially without understanding why those figures might be higher or lower.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Mark Carney Wants Big Banks to Save More—in Bullet Points!

By, 11/11/2014

The Financial Stability Board released plans to make banks less “too big to fail”[i] Monday,[ii] continuing their long-running effort to prevent governments from ever profiting off failing banks again.[iii] Or taking losses. Or just bailing them out in general. Starting in 2019 or so, a few dozen of the world’s biggest banks must hold at least twice as much “loss absorbing capital” as normal banks so they can replace bailouts with “bail-ins,” Cyprus-style. Regulators, led by BoE chief Mark Carney, believe this will allow the system to deal with failing banks in an orderly way, without triggering panic, and without governments stepping in. We are skeptical.

Here is a quick outline of the FSB’s plan:

Who: “Globally Systemically Important Banks,” aka G-SIB—the 30 biggest and/or most interconnected banks globally.[iv] Here is the 2014 list.[v] Here is the geographical breakdown:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
US Economy

The Employment Sentiment Trap

By, 11/10/2014
Ratings214.761905


There are plenty of reasons to cheer the US economy's prospects, but unemployment isn't one of them. Photo by Thomas Starke/Bongards/Getty Images.

October’s jobs report was another dandy, as payroll gains topped 200,000 again and the unemployment rate ticked down from 5.9% to 5.8%, its post-war (1948) average. We’re inclined to spare you the bells and whistles and say, “here’s more confirmation the economy grew recently.” Headlines, however, claim sunnier labor markets mean the economy is improving and has momentum—reasons to be bullish. Public Service Announcement: Unemployment, a late-lagging indicator, is pretty much never a reason to be bullish or bearish. Assuming it is can lead investors to a dangerous place.

Interested in market analysis for your portfolio? Our latest report looks at key stock market drivers including market, political, and economic factors. Click Here for More!

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Emerging Markets, Into Perspective

All Aboard the Through Train?

By, 11/14/2014
Ratings294.137931

Starting Monday, foreign investors will have unprecedented access to mainland  Chinese stocks courtesy of the delightfully named “through train” program, which lets foreigners buy “selected” Chinese A-shares traded on the Shanghai exchange through Hong Kong brokerages. Many are cheery about the prospect of new demand worth tens of billions of dollars pushing Chinese stocks higher. But before you choo-choo your way over, we’d encourage you to keep a rational perspective. China has plenty going for it, but anyone expecting the through train to be the ticket to sky-high returns might end up a tad disappointed.

In recent years, Chinese A-shares haven’t quite reflected the economy’s rapid growth rate. They boomed at times during the 2000s bull market, but as Exhibit 1 shows, this was short-lived and out of step with the global bull that began in 2003. As of Thursday’s close, A-shares were still 36% under their 1/14/2008 peak. Meanwhile, China’s economy kept on chugging, taking Japan’s place as the world’s second biggest. Not that stocks and GDP should move one-to-one—that isn’t how it works ever. But it underscores how China’s political climate, capital market controls and sentiment have offset many an economic tailwind.

Exhibit 1: Chinese A-Shares

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics

What to Expect from Lame-Duck Season

By, 11/13/2014
Ratings453.844445


President Obama and Congressional leaders enjoy a friendly post-midterm lunch. Photo by Dennis Brack/Pool via Bloomberg.

Editors’ Note: Our discussion of politics and elections is purely focused on potential market impact. Stocks favor neither party. Believing in the market/economic superiority of one group of politicians over another can invite bias—a source of significant investment errors.

“What can we expect from the next Congress?” Over a week after midterms, speculation still hogs headlines. The latest: Some say this year’s lame duck session is the acid test. If the long-bickering, do-nothing, 113th Congress can shake hands and pass a raft of measures, we’ll know the 114th can break the ice, too. And if not? Don’t expect bipartisan compromise the next two years. But this overlooks what Congress usually does during the two-month purgatory between the election and when the guard changes in January. We believe investors should expect a typical lame-duck session, which doesn’t really indicate much of anything about what follows.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Personal Finance

Risky Business

By, 11/12/2014
Ratings583.982759


There is more risk than just volatility (and a board game). Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images.

Risk. This four letter word both tempts and terrifies investors. Some folks think it’s the ticket to sky-high returns. Others find it scary or uncomfortable. Both mentalities lead many to an effort to measure it. Because if you can quantify something (e.g. this stock is risky based on this metric), you can understand what you’re dealing with—and understanding things is nice. Don’t want much risk? Avoid the thing with the higher risk number! But as one stellar paper we recently read thoroughly explained, you can’t reduce investment risk to a single number or set of figures. Most investment risks aren’t actually quantifiable. Believing they are can lead to truly risky portfolio decisions. 

When quantifying “risk,” many folks confuse volatility with risk. These aren’t synonymous. Volatility—price movement down and up—can be tracked, measured and plotted relative to an index. Short-term volatility reminds us of the risk of loss that comes with an asset, but it doesn’t quantify risk. Measures like standard deviation, beta and the Sharpe Ratio[i] tell you how much something moved (note: past tense) relative to the market—backward-looking descriptions of price movement, not very helpful in assessing future volatility or performance. They are not permanent attributes of a strategy, security, fund, manager, tactic or squirrel. (Just kidding. Beta may be a permanent attribute of squirrels.) They do not necessarily differentiate between more and less risky strategies—especially without understanding why those figures might be higher or lower.

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff

Mark Carney Wants Big Banks to Save More—in Bullet Points!

By, 11/11/2014

The Financial Stability Board released plans to make banks less “too big to fail”[i] Monday,[ii] continuing their long-running effort to prevent governments from ever profiting off failing banks again.[iii] Or taking losses. Or just bailing them out in general. Starting in 2019 or so, a few dozen of the world’s biggest banks must hold at least twice as much “loss absorbing capital” as normal banks so they can replace bailouts with “bail-ins,” Cyprus-style. Regulators, led by BoE chief Mark Carney, believe this will allow the system to deal with failing banks in an orderly way, without triggering panic, and without governments stepping in. We are skeptical.

Here is a quick outline of the FSB’s plan:

Who: “Globally Systemically Important Banks,” aka G-SIB—the 30 biggest and/or most interconnected banks globally.[iv] Here is the 2014 list.[v] Here is the geographical breakdown:

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
US Economy

The Employment Sentiment Trap

By, 11/10/2014
Ratings214.761905


There are plenty of reasons to cheer the US economy's prospects, but unemployment isn't one of them. Photo by Thomas Starke/Bongards/Getty Images.

October’s jobs report was another dandy, as payroll gains topped 200,000 again and the unemployment rate ticked down from 5.9% to 5.8%, its post-war (1948) average. We’re inclined to spare you the bells and whistles and say, “here’s more confirmation the economy grew recently.” Headlines, however, claim sunnier labor markets mean the economy is improving and has momentum—reasons to be bullish. Public Service Announcement: Unemployment, a late-lagging indicator, is pretty much never a reason to be bullish or bearish. Assuming it is can lead investors to a dangerous place.

Interested in market analysis for your portfolio? Our latest report looks at key stock market drivers including market, political, and economic factors. Click Here for More!

Commentary

Fisher Investments Editorial Staff
Politics

Goldilocks Gridlock

By, 11/06/2014
Ratings614.254098

 
We vote for gridlock. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images. 

A reminder: This article deals with politics, which we are told is often a contentious topic. Please note we don’t favor any political party—Republican, Democrat, Tory, Labour, Green, LDP, DPJ, Fidesz, etc.—and believe that ideology is blinding and quite dangerous to your portfolio’s health. All (excluding maybe Fidesz) have done good and bad things for stocks over time.

Hey! Did you hear? The US midterm elections are over, with the Republicans logging a lopsided win to wrest Senate control from the Democrats and increase their House majority. Well, of course you did. Additionally, the GOP took the majority of the gubernatorial races, in what amounts to an electoral trifecta (or tri-terror, depending on your point of view). We admit, we were modestly surprised by the victory margin. As we wrote here and here, the structure of this year’s midterm tilted Republican all along, but we expected a Senate sweep would require a virtually perfect campaign. Ah well, the outcome is the same either way—gridlock, which stocks love. In fact, we got even more delicious gridlock than we expected. We would suggest tuning out the media speculation over what it all means and where the two parties can agree. Celebrate instead this bigger, material positive for stocks.

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 Washington Post, 11/21/2014

MarketMinder's View: Whether you believe President Obama’s executive order on immigration is the cat’s meow, the worst or somewhere in between, it is a purely sociological thing. It does not alter cyclical economic factors and has no fundamental impact on markets. Markets don’t care about sociology. People care! But markets don’t. (Though, if this move brings more gridlock, markets would like that.)

By , The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/2014

MarketMinder's View: We are pretty darned ambivalent on this piece. On the one hand, yes! Diversify globally! Foreign stocks have taken it on the chin lately, but overall and on average, going global helps broaden your opportunities and manage risk. Chasing heat with a US-only portfolio purely because of recent performance is likely the wrong move. But, on the other hand, the reasons to buy foreign should not include hedging against a US rate hike (something history shows has no history of bearishness). Nor should they include sky-high valuations in the US. Partly because the sky-high valuation here is the wonky 10-year smoothed P/E ratio, which is even less predictive than normal P/Es, and partly because P/Es don’t show you anything but sentiment. The current one-year P/E is right around average, which suggests sentiment hasn’t run away from reality. Again, the reasons to keep some money in foreign now are because heat chasing is bad, and sentiment on foreign stocks is just too dour.

By , The New York Times, 11/21/2014

MarketMinder's View: Worried about the Japanification of Europe? Well here comes Jedi Master Mario Draghi with another mind trick over the euroland economy and capital markets! Wheeeeeee! Kidding. Actually, we hope this one goes kinda like the last time Super Mario tried to use the Force: He said some words and then announced a program that he never used.  Because actually doing something this time would probably mean massive quantitative easing, and that would be bad. It would flatten the yield curve further, whacking lending and boosting bank reserves—which banks must pay to hold at central banks. To get around that, they’ve been charging customers for deposits. So let’s add it up: They’ll lend less and suck money out of the system via deposit fees. That’s DE-flationary, folks! A one-way ticket to the Dark Side. This isn’t the stimulus you’re looking for.

By , The Guardian, 11/21/2014

MarketMinder's View: Hear ye, hear ye! Bankers are people! Not aliens! Not robots! (We think. But we’re open to the idea of bankerbot.) There. Ethical problem solved. Errrrr…or not. All kidding aside, the notion banking is inherently morally bankrupt is quite wide of the mark. Are there some liars and crooks? Of course. But show us a profession where that isn’t true! To paraphrase legendary investor Lucien Hooper, all professions have “incompetents, crooks and charlatans.” The study here proclaims to show otherwise, but its shortcomings seem fairly obvious—the sample is limited and the methodology bizarre. We aren’t scientists or psychologists, but we are unconvinced any of this is a thing. So that raises the question: Why focus on bankers? Why not make dozens of onerous rule changes in a vain attempt to stamp out criminal activity in all professions? Ooooooh. That’s right. 2008. Anyway, this is a sentiment-driven witch hunt, nothing more. The banking industry is no more prone to greed-driven criminal behavior, and the occasional disruption as a result, than any other. It is no riskier and no more in need of a clean-up. And we suspect our financial system would function more efficiently without all this scrutiny impeding banks’ ability to do their societally beneficial job of channeling savings into investment.

Global Market Update

Market Wrap-Up, Thurs Nov 20 2014

Below is a market summary (as of market close Thursday, 11/20/2014):

  • Global Equities: MSCI World (+0.1%)
  • US Equities: S&P 500 (+0.2%)
  • UK Equities: MSCI UK (0.0%)
  • Best Country: Canada (+1.0%)
  • Worst Country: Spain (-1.8%)
  • Best Sector: Energy (+1.2%)
  • Worst Sector: Utilities (-0.6%)
  • Bond Yields: 10-year US Treasurys fell .02 to 2.34%

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.