Bullish exhaustion

Mid-week market update: You can tell a lot about the tone of the tape by how it reacts to news. There is growing evidence that the stock market is becoming immune to good news, which is a signal of bullish exhaustion. In all likelihood, the near-term path of least resistance for stock prices is down.

The results from Q2 Earnings Season has been stellar. Experienced investors know that corporate management is plays the “beat the earnings” game well. According to FactSet, the average 5-year EPS beat rate is 68%. On the other hand, it’s harder to play accounting game with sales, as the average 5-year sales beat rate is only 53%. This quarter, sales beat rates are off the charts when compared to their historical experience.
 

 

FactSet‘s update of earnings from last Friday shows that forward EPS is being revised upwards as well. That should be good news for stock prices.
 

 

Instead, the SPX has been mired in a narrow trading range and it has been unable to stage an upside breakout to new highs.
 

 

The lack of a bullish impulse in response to positive news is a warning for the bulls.

Immune to good news

Business Insider highlighted analysis from BAML that showed the market is barely reacting to sales and earning beats, while punishing misses.
 

 

This asymmetric reaction function to news is an open invitation to some bearish catalyst to spark a downdraft in prices.

Bad breadth a drag on stock prices

Jeff Hirsch at Almanac Trader recently sounded a warning from a chartist’s viewpoint. He observed that the Advance-Decline Lines of major market indices appear to have peaked, which is bearish.
 

In the above chart appear DJIA, SP 500, NASDAQ and Russell 2000 indexes above Advance/Decline lines. NASDAQ and Russell 2000 Advance/Decline lines appear to have peaked last week and have turned lower. SP 500 and NYSE have turned flat and appear to be leaning lower. Generally, when the majority of and index’s components are declining the index already is doing the same or may soon do so.

We can observe a similar effect by analyzing the relative returns of the Russell 2000 small cap stocks against the megacap DJIA. Even as the Dow made fresh highs this week, small cap stocks weakened, indicating a negative breadth divergence.
 

 

Negative momentum

The Fear and Greed Index is also showing some ominous signs of intermediate term weakness. This index peaked recently at 81 and began to retreat to the current reading of 67. As the chart below shows, the market historically hasn’t bottomed until this index falls to a minimum of 40. We are not there yet.
 

 

In short, the stock market appears to be poised for a correction of unknown magnitude. While the fundamental are supportive of higher prices, the combination of a crowded long positioning and faltering price momentum indicates that traders should adopt a tactically bearish view on stock prices.

Disclosure: Long SPXU

How Covel inadvertently exposed the chasm between investors and traders

As a rule, I don’t do book reviews. However, regular readers know that I am a big fan of trend following models and I use them extensively in my asset allocation work. When a publicist offered a free review copy of Michael Covel’s Trend Following, 5th Edition: How to Make a Fortune in Bull, Bear and Black Swan Markets, I jumped at the chance.
 

 

The book also featured a forward by Barry Ritholz. Ritholz’s partner Josh Brown recently wrote that they use trend following techniques for tactical asset allocation, which is a sensible decision that I wholeheartedly agree with:

At my firm, we use trend for tactical asset management. It takes everything above into account- not only the things, but people’s actual reaction to the things, a sort of realpolitik for markets. Will it always work? Doubtful. What is the downside when it doesn’t work? What is the expected benefit when it does? Is there a behavioral aspect to why it makes sense to include tactical in client portfolios? We think so. Not everyone would agree that this is worthwhile.

After all that buildup, the book left me vaguely disappointed. Covel’s approach has been to be a cheerleader for traders who use trend following techniques without digging into the deeper issues that face investors. He treats trend following almost as a magic black box that everyone should use. He doesn’t take the next step to discuss the characteristics of this class of strategies, which sophisticated investors think about when they consider the use of such techniques have a place in their portfolio.

An evangelical cheerleader

This excerpt from the book explains how trend following works:

Trend following, and assorted derivatives of price-based trading, is not a new concept. It goes back across names like David Ricardo, Jesse Livermore, Richard Wyckoff, Arthur Cutten, Charles Dow, Henry Clews, William Dunnigan, Richard Donchian, Nicolas Darvas, Amos Hostetter, and Richard Russell. Believe it or not, it literally goes back centuries, with data to prove it.

AQR’s Cliff Asness clarifies: “Historically, it’s been a strategy pursued primarily by futures traders and in the last 10–20 years by hedge funds. The trading strategy employed by most managed futures funds boils down to some type of trend following strategy, which is also known as momentum investing.”

Excerpted with permission of the publisher, Wiley, from Trend Following, 5th Edition: How to Make a Fortune in Bull, Bear and Black Swan Markets by Michael Covel. Copyright (c) 2017. All rights reserved. This book is available at all booksellers.

Covel extols the virtues of the technique with a touch of evangelical fervor:

Nonetheless, if you look at how much money trend following has made before, during, and after assorted market bubbles, it becomes far more relevant to the bottom line of astute market players.

Yet, even when over the top trend following success is thrown onto the table, skeptical investors can be tough sells. They might say markets have changed and trend following no longer works. But philosophically trend following hasn’t changed and won’t change, even though markets might not always cooperate.

Let’s put change in perspective. Markets behave the same as they did hundreds of years ago. In other words, markets are the same today because they always change—humans are involved, after all. This behavioral view is the philosophical underpinning of trend following. A few years ago, for example, the German mark had significant trading volume. Then the euro replaced the mark. This was a huge change, yet a typical one. If you are flexible and have a plan of attack—a solid strategy—market changes, like changes in life, won’t kill you. Trend followers traded the mark; now they trade the euro. That’s how to think.

Excerpted with permission of the publisher, Wiley, from Trend Following, 5th Edition: How to Make a Fortune in Bull, Bear and Black Swan Markets by Michael Covel. Copyright (c) 2017. All rights reserved. This book is available at all booksellers.

While I believe that these techniques have their place, trend following models represent only one tool out of many in an investor’s toolbox. Trend following, when applied properly, is no different from the fundamental analyst who digs into a company financials and operations to discover that the shares are dramatically undervalued because of some hidden asset on the balance sheet.

Unanswered questions

For some perspective, here are the questions I ask when someone presents me with an investment or trading strategy:

  1. Why does it work, or what is the source of the alpha?
  2. Under what circumstances does it not work?

Covel scratches at the surface of the first question in his book, by referring to behavioral finance research from the likes of Daniel Kahneman and then asserting “you have to believe”. He went on to blame non-believers for their own failure for the following reasons:

  • Lack of discipline
  • Impatience
  • No objectivity
  • Greed
  • Refusal to accept truth
  • Impulsive behavior
  • Inability to stay in the present
  • False parallels

What`s more, he doesn’t really address the second question at all. This issue is particularly important in light of the poor performance exhibited by trend following Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) in the past few years, as shown by the BarclayHedge CTA Index.
 

 

A glance at the above chart raises a couple of important questions.

  • Are the models broken? Perhaps CTAs have hit some magic aggregate capacity limit for trend following.
  • If not, then what are the characteristics of this strategy that made it fail?

I found no answers in Covel’s book.

Alpha becoming beta?

I believe that Michael Covel’s book illustrates the wide chasm between professional traders and investors. Simply put, they don’t think the same way.

Covel’s approach has been to be a cheerleader for trend following principles by showing how successful traders and hedge funds have used these techniques to make a lot of money. War stories are great, but they don’t get at the heart of the how, why, as well as the pros and cons of these techniques.

By contrast, here is an article from Pension and Investments that illustrate how institutional investors think about the managed future and trend following space:

Competition for institutional investor assets is fierce in the managed futures market — widely accepted as the most commoditized in the hedge fund industry — with intense price competition between old-school firms such as Man AHL, Winton Capital Ltd. and Aspect Capital Ltd. and banks, alternative risk premium managers and replicators offering lower-cost exposure to trend-following strategies.

“Institutional investors are forward-looking now in the face of predicted market declines and this is playing out in the managed futures space,” said Mark S. Rzepczynski, co-managing partner and CEO of AMPHI Research+Trading LLC, Boston, a global macro/managed futures advisory and brokerage firm.

“Chief investment officers are ​ looking for crisis alpha production from systematic trend strategies that will make money in down markets but they aren’t willing to pay high fees for them. Pricing is the biggest issue with these asset owners,” Mr. Rzepczynski said.

In other words, alpha is turning into beta. Institutional investors view these strategies as “crisis alpha” because trend following strategies are uncorrelated to the returns of risky asset classes, such as equities. At the same time, institutions are putting fee pressure on managers because they’ve figured out that these models can be turned into a factor beta:

The response from institutionally oriented trend-followers has been to break apart and reassemble their traditional strategies into cheaper, stripped-down versions without the modulating factors that adjust the systematic portfolio’s model response to real-world factors, sources said. Also on offer are new alternative risk premium strategies that replicate the beta of the core strategy’s systematic trend-following approach.

The result is a 50- to 100-basis-point flat fee range for most risk-premium strategies, sources agreed. Fees for traditional systematic trend-following strategies range between 0.75% and 1% for management fees and 10% to 20% for performance fees.

The rise of hedge fund replication strategies means that you can more or less turn trend following into a “smart beta” ETF that anyone can use. The barriers to entry for using these techniques are falling very quickly.

In that case, trend following doesn’t sound like such a magic black box anymore. That represents my main source of disappointment. Covel’s book is in its fifth edition, and therefore he should be the authority on this topic. Where is he on these crucial issues of the characteristics of trend following?

No one rings a bell at the top, but…

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bearish (downgrade)

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

The message from sector leadership

It is said that no one rings a bell at the market top, but a review of sector leadership shows that late cycle inflation hedge sectors are poised to assume the mantle of market leadership (see Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull), which would be the signal for a blow-off in inflationary expectations. Such an event would be the trigger for the Fed to become more aggressive in its rate normalization policy, and raises the risk of a policy mistake that could push the economy into recession.

If investors are looking for a bell to ring at the top, then there are signs that someone is slowly ascending the bell tower.

Consider the Relative Rotation Graphs, or RRG chart, of the market today. As an explanation, RRG charts are a way of depicting the changes in leadership in different groups, such as sectors, countries or regions, or market factors. The charts are organized into four quadrants. The typical group rotation pattern occurs in a clockwise fashion. Leading groups (top right) deteriorate to weakening groups (bottom right), which then rotates to lagging groups (bottom left), which changes to improving groups (top left), and finally completes the cycle by improving to leading groups (top right) again.
 

 

Wayne Gretzky famously said that his secret was to skate where the puck is going to be. Using that principle, the top left hand quadrant shows the sectors that are the likely emerging market leadership. These groups, with the exception of Financial stocks, are all in the inflation hedge and resource extraction industries, namely Energy, Metals and Mining, and Materials.

In short, the message from the evolution of sector leadership indicates that the market is poised for a blow-off in inflationary expectations, which will likely prompt a response from the Fed.

Resource extraction as emerging leadership

Let us consider each of the groups within the resource extraction sectors. The chart below depicts industrial metals (top panel), with Metals and Mining stocks (XME, middle panel), and the market relative performance of XME against SPY (bottom panel). Industrial metals are in the process of making a saucer bottom but they have not staged an upside breakout yet. XME shows a similar saucer bottom formation after breaking out of a downtrend. Similarly, the XME relative performance chart also shows a rounding bottom after rallying out of a relative downtrend. The price action of these related groups suggest that a cyclical upturn is at hand.
 

 

The performance of crude oil and the Energy sector is not as well developed. Oil prices (top panel) is testing resistance at a downtrend line. Energy stocks (XLE, middle panel) has staged an upside breakout out of a downtrend, and so has the market relative performance of XLE (bottom panel). These patterns are constructive for the oil and Energy sector, but if these groups follow the pattern of XME, then expect some back and forth consolidation before oil prices and Energy stocks can rise in a sustainable manner.
 

 

While we are on the topic of resource extraction stocks, the chart below shows the same analytic on gold and gold stocks, as many readers are interested in this group. Gold and gold stocks are not as well developed in their near-term market leadership potential as Metals and Mining, or Energy stocks. Gold (top panel) remains range-bound, and gold stocks (GDX, middle panel) is testing resistance at a downtrend line. However, the market relative performance of GDX (bottom panel) shows that GDX has rallied through a minor relative downtrend line, but still faces further overhead relative resistance that’s not that far away.
 

 

From a global perspective, the RRG chart shows a similar pattern of emerging resource leadership at a country and regional level. Emerging leaders are resource based economies, such as Canada and Australia, while the Eurozone, and the markets of China’s major trading partners are rolling over in relative strength.
 

 

The relative performance of MSCI Canada (EWC) against MSCI All-Country World (ACWI) is a typical example (all returns are in USD). EWC staged an upside breakout from a relative downtrend and it is in the process of forming a saucer shaped relative bottom against ACWI.
 

 

Janet and the yield curve

I would like to add a word about the other emerging leadership sector, the Financials. Financial stocks are driven by slightly different, but related, fundamental expectations. The top panel of the chart below shows that Financial stocks (XLF) recently pulled back after staging an upside breakout out of a range. The bottom panel shows the market relative performance of this sector is correlated to the shape of the yield curve. A bet on this sector is therefore a bet on a steepening yield curve, which is a signal that the bond market expects better growth ahead. That’s why the relative performance of resource extraction stocks and financial stocks are related, because higher growth tends to put upward pressure on inflation and inflationary expectations.
 

 

I would add a caveat to the analysis of Financial stocks using the yield curve. Janet Yellen recently stated that the Fed is watching the yield curve in its conduct of monetary policy (via Marketwatch):

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen on Thursday said the central bank would consider the bond market yield curve as it slowly reduces its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, which it had used to help stimulate the economy.

Yellen, in front of the Senate Banking Committee, was speaking of the Fed’s plan to stop reinvesting the principal on Treasury- and mortgage-backed securities.

Yellen explained that the Fed would set caps on the amount of reinvestment allowed to occur, and that the caps would gradually rise over time.

“So once we trigger this process, I expect it to run in the background, not something that we’ll be talking a lot from meeting to meeting,” she said.

“Now, we think that our purchases of assets did have some positive effect in depressing longer-term interest rates relative to short-term interest rates. But of course we will take that into effect, namely a steepening of the yield curve, in how we set the federal funds rate, which I hope will remain our primary tool for adjusting the stance of monetary policy.”

If the Fed is “watching” this indicator so closely, then the yield curve may cease to function as a recession indicator in this cycle. The Fed may not allow the yield curve to invert by using its powers to intervene in the market.
 

 

In addition, Goldman Sachs believes that unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet is likely to steepen the yield curve (via Marketwatch):

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s strategist predict that Treasury prices will fall, pushing the 10-year yield up. Goldman forecast that the 10-year yield will rise an additional 20 basis points in 2017, assuming reductions kick off this year as predicted. Then, the bank sees an annual increase of 12.5 basis points in yields over the following two years. Bond prices and yields move inversely…

Applying a model from the Fed, Goldman has sought to understand the ramifications of erasing the legacy of extraordinary monetary policy. Researchers at the board of governors of the Fed had estimated quantitative easing had depressed the term premium by a 100 basis points. A term premium represents the extra yield investors demand for holding longer-term and potentially less liquid securities.

Bottom line: While a steepening yield curve may be beneficial to Financial stocks, it may be ineffective as a recession forecasting tool in this cycle.

Market turbulence ahead?

Looking ahead, intermediate term sentiment and technical indicators are starting to look a little stretched on the bullish side, which is contrarian bearish. I had pointed out that the Fear and Greed Index rose above 80 last week, and such conditions have led to either sideways or corrective markets in the past.
 

 

As well, the 10 day moving average of the CBOE put/call ratio has fallen to crowded long levels where market has had trouble advancing in the past.
 

 

The NYSE Common Stock only McClellan Summation Index is also getting into overbought territory, indicating a pause may be needed.
 

 

The stock market sold off on Thursday when JPMorgan’s Marko Kolanovic derivatives strategist put out a research note warning about the risks of low volatility (via Street Insider):

It is safe to say that volatility has reached all-time lows and this should give pause to equity managers. Low volatility would not be a problem if not for strategies that increase leverage when volatility declines. Many of these strategies (option hedging, Volatility targeting, CTAs, Risk Parity, etc.) share similar features with the dynamic ‘portfolio insurance’ of 1987. While these strategies include concepts like ‘risk control’, ‘crisis alpha’, etc. in various degrees they rely on selling into market weakness to cut losses. This creates a ‘stop loss order’ that gets larger in size and closer to the current market price as volatility gets lower. Additionally, growth in short volatility strategies in a self-fulfilling manner suppresses both implied and realized volatility. This in turn prompts other investors to increase leverage, and those that hedge with options lose out and eventually throw in the towel. The fact that we had many volatility cycles since 1983, and are now at all-time lows in volatility, indicates that we may be very close to the turning point.

Kolanovic went on to warn about complacency, as shown by low stock correlation and the risk presented by the Fed’s normalization of monetary policy:

Over the past year, correlation of stocks and sectors declined at an unprecedented speed and magnitude (Figure below). A similar decorrelation occurred on only 2 other occasions over the last 30 years: in 1993 and 2000. Both of those episodes led to subsequent market weakness and an increase in volatility (in 1994, and 2001). The current decline in market correlations started following the US elections and was largely driven by macro (rather than stock specific) forces. Expectation of Fiscal measures, deregulation and higher interest rates set in motion large equity sector and style rotations. For instance, the correlation between Financials and Technology dropped to all-time lows (similar level to during the tech bubble). The correlation between equity styles also dropped (e.g. Value was lifted by rates, and Low Volatility was impacted negatively). Declining correlations pushed market volatility lower (see here), and the ~25% market rally further suppressed correlations and volatility. To investigate what are potential implications for the future price action we look at the 1993 and 2000 decorrelation events…

The current episode of correlation decline shares some similar features to both 1993 and 2000. The decline of correlation was in part driven by the market rally and elevated valuations; after a period of falling, interest rates are expected to rise (as in 1993), sector valuations (e.g. Internet) and sector rotations play an outsized role in market price action (similar to 2000), and record low levels of volatility increased the level of risk taking (as in 1993). Normalization of monetary policy will most likely lead to an increase of correlations and volatility, and that will at some point result in market weakness. While it seems that the 1993/1994 analogy is more appropriate (implying an orderly price action), investors should be aware of hidden leverage and tail risk of a more significant correction, such as the one in 2001.

 

The combination of excessively bullish sentiment, and market positioning by dynamic hedging strategies identified by Kolanovic suggests that stock prices are poised to hit an air pocket of unknown magnitude.

The good news

The good news is that any correction is likely to be brief and stock prices are well supported by fundamentals. The negative estimate revision that I identified last week (see What would a contrarian do?) turned out to be a data blip. The latest update from John Butters of FactSet shows that forward 12-month EPS rebounded strongly after a solid Q2 Earnings Season.
 

 

The recent history of weekly forward 12-month EPS revisions shows that estimates rebounded strongly in the most recent reporting period.
 

 

As well, the spike in insider sales reported by Barron’s also turned out to be data blip and readings are back at a “buy” signal again.
 

 

The week ahead

Does this mean that the bulls can buy with both hands? Well…

I interpret current conditions as an overbought market in need of a pullback, but downside risk is likely to be relatively limited unless Kolanovic’s scenario of a disorderly unwind of positions were to occur. The market may need some volatility to shake investors and traders out of their complacent mood. According to Ryan Detrick of LPL Financial, a 5% pullback would not be unusual by historical standards (via Marketwatch):

61 of the past 67 years have had a 5% downdraft at least once, or 91% of all years, according to Ryan Detrick, senior market strategist, at LPL Financial.

“The inevitable 5% drop will be a shock to nearly everyone,” Detrick said. “We’ve been historically spoiled so far this year, but as the economic cycle ages, we fully expect more volatility the remainder of this year and the likely 5% correction to take place as well,” he said.

 

Under these circumstances, my inner trader is relying on breadth indicators from Index Indicators to time his exit from his short positions. The short term (1-2 day time horizon) breadth model is showing negative momentum, but readings are neutral and not oversold yet.
 

 

The longer term (1-2 week time horizon) models are also showing similar readings.
 

 

My inner investor remains constructive on stocks, though he believes that this bull is nearing the end of his run. My inner trader is short the market, and he is watching for oversold readings on short term indicators in order to close out his position.

Disclosure: Long SPXU

Curb your (bullish) enthusiasm

Mid-week market update: Subscribers received an email update of the tactically fragile environment for US equities on Monday. There are plenty of reasons to be cautious.

Trade Followers observed that the Twitter breadth of all sectors are bullish, and such conditions are reflective of overbought market conditions:

Last week, sector sentiment gleaned from the Twitter stream had every sector positive. When this occurs a short term market top materializes usually within the following week. Once in a while, the sectors will paint another week with all of them in positive territory, then the top comes. Basically, when every sector is being bought aggressively it signals that the market is overbought.

 

That`s the just first warning. There are others.

Fear and Greed overbought

The Fear and Greed Index hit 81 yesterday, but retreated to 79 today. In the past, the market has either consolidated for a few weeks or weakened from these levels. As a reminder, the corrective action that began in late 2016 began when this index peaked in the high 70`s.
 

 

Good results, “meh” guidance

I wrote on the weekend that I was seeing the unusual condition where Q2 EPS and sales beat rates were well ahead of historical averages, but forward 12-month estimate revisions was falling. I then questioned if the negative revision was a data blip (see What would a contrarian do?).

Savita Subramanian at BAML confirmed my observation of negative revisions with a report entitled, “Good results, ‘meh’ guidance’. She found that Q3 2017 guidance was well below the historical average.
 

 

As a result, Q3 estimates are falling much faster compared to the past few quarters.
 

 

Should this trend continue, history shows that similar episodes of flat to down forward 12-month EPS has seen sloppy stock markets.
 

 

Disclosure: Long SPXU

Why the labor market is tighter than you think

As the FOMC meets this week, one key question for Fed policy makers is, “How tight is the labor market?” A related question is, “In the face of tame inflation statistics, when are we going to see evidence of rising wage growth?”

Both questions are important for monetary policy. The New York Times had an article that lamented the lack of inflation. The WSJ reported late last week that, in effect, the Fed has no idea of what is going on with inflation:

The Federal Reserve is likely to stand pat on policy when it concludes a two-day meeting next week, but it faces a debate about the future path of interest-rate increases because of a deepening puzzle over inflation.

Officials will likely leave short-term rates unchanged and wait until September before announcing plans to slowly shrink their $4.5 trillion portfolio of bonds and other assets.

They face a dilemma, however, because the two sets of economic indicators they most closely monitor are sending conflicting signals about the urgency of additional rate increases.

The unemployment rate, which hit a 16-year low in May, shows labor markets are tightening. That argues for the Fed to keep lifting interest rates to prevent the economy from overheating. But inflation is drifting away from the central bank’s 2% target, suggesting borrowing costs should stay low to strengthen price pressures.

I recently highlighted analysis from Adam Ozimek of Moody’s Analytics showing that there is no wage growth mystery. Ozimek found that the Phillips Curve, which postulates a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, is alive and well once he substituted the prime age non-employment rate for the unemployment rate (also see my recent post In search of the elusive inflation surge).
 

 

Using this analytical framework, the Fed is on the right track in normalizing monetary policy. Additional data indicates that the labor market is tighter than the market consensus, and a rise in inflation is just around the corner.

Adjusting for the opioid epidemic

One drag on the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), which affects the actual supply of labor, is the growing opioid epidemic in the United States. This chart (via Adam Toze) shows some perspective on the magnitude of the problem.
 

 

CNBC reported that Janet Yellen expressed some concerns about the effects of opioids on the LFPR in her Senate testimony:

In her testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, Yellen said rampant opioid abuse in the U.S. is related to the decline in labor force participation among prime-age workers.

“I don’t know if it’s causal or symptomatic of long-running economic maladies that have affected these communities and particularly affected workers who have seen their job opportunities decline,” Yellen said in response to questioning from Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., on the issue.

I used a couple of ways to estimate the opioid effect on labor force dynamics. The chart below shows Adam Ozimek’s metric, the prime age non-employment rate (PNER blue line), and the disability rate for people over 16. The effects of the opioid epidemic really hit the economy at the start of the Great Financial Crisis, one way of estimating its effects is to observe the rise in disability rate during that period, which was about 2%. If we subtract 2% from PNER (red dot), we can see that it is at levels where PNER has bottomed in the last two cycles.
 

 

Since opioid abuse is correlated with criminality, another way of estimating the opioid effect on LFPR is to observe the criminality effect on LFPR. The Sentencing Project estimated that roughly 2.5% of the American population has been disenfranchised because they were felons and unable to vote (via Business Insider). Further research shows that American incarceration rates are exceptionally high when compared to other developed economies, and even arrest records without convictions can depress someone’s chances of getting a job (see Solving the data puzzle at the center of monetary policy).
 

 

When we subtract the 2.5% disenfranchisement rate as a ballpark estimate for the opioid effect, we arrive at a similar conclusion. In conclusion, the labor market is probably much tighter than market expectations.

Where are the wage increases?

If the labor market is so tight, then where is the wage growth? Average hourly earnings stands at just over 2% and the rate of increase is decelerating.
 

 

Wage growth is where you find it, and it depends on which statistical measure you use. Matt Busigin recently observed that the 3-year rate of growth in real median weekly earnings has hit a cycle high.
 

 

Here is the same statistic, but using nominal YoY growth rates.
 

 

Indeed, the WSJ recently reported that small business have had to compete for talent with higher wage increases, with some handing out raises as much as 15%.
 

 

In conclusion, the US labor market is a lot tighter than expected. Don’t be surprised to see wage pressures rising in the near future, which is a development that will be a surprise for the market.

What would a contrarian do?

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bullish

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

What’s the contrarian asset class?

Being a contrarian is a lonely life. You don’t hang out with the popular kids. You are probably the nerd in the class. You get picked last in team sports. You don’t get invited to any of the parties. And even if you do, everyone laughs at you.

Over at Macro Man, he put us in a contrarian state of mind by asking, “What’s the unloved asset class?”

The question was not in the context of a trade, such as short FAANG, but an asset class that you buy and hold for the next few years. Going down the list, he rejected US equities for the reasons of high valuation.
 

 

He also rejected developed market fixed income, as well as all forms of credit. The cap rates on commercial real estate isn’t offering great value either.
 

 

Private equity? Just look at the cash on the sidelines waiting for deals.
 

 

At the end, he concluded, “Hmm, cash and gold seem to check a lot of boxes.” No wonder contrarians don’t get invited to parties.

Cash? Gold? While I believe that it’s still a little early to get overly bearish on equities, but here is how a scenario that favors cash, gold and other commodities may develop.

Sentiment extremes

Cash makes sense if an investor is looking over the next couple of years. As I have demonstrated in my series “Things you don’t see at market bottoms”, sentiment is getting a little frothy.

Consistent with the frothy theme, Callum Thomas pointed out that BAML private client (GWIM = Global Wealth and Investment Management) cash levels are extraordinarily low levels.
 

 

Those readings are consistent with my past observation that the T-D Ameritrade Investor Movement Index at an all-time highs, indicating a crowded long in equities. TD-Ameritrade CEO Tim Hockey confirmed the bullishness in his Q2 2017 earnings call:

We are seeing this quarter very broad-based engagement in the market, so everyone from brand-new customers opening their first account to very active traders seem to be engaged in the market. We saw a good activity across pretty much all of our products, futures were down a little bit year-over-year, because we had such a strong comparable. In terms of holdings, we are still seeing the trend where the ETF’s are increasing a bit as a percentage of assets. We continue to see good holdings in mutual funds and really across all of the products that we typically see.

 

As for the claim of gold as the contrarian asset class, I would generalize that category to commodities. Marketwatch recently highlighted analysis from Incrementum AG indicating that the equity/commodity ratio is hitting an extreme.
 

 

An opportunity in commodities?

From a technical viewpoint, a glance at the two major headline commodities, oil and gold, shows that both are bottoming. Crude oil seems to be a bit further ahead in that process when compared to gold. The chart below of energy equities relative to the market shows that these stocks are tracing out a broad based bottom. Energy stocks have tested the relative downtrend, but have not been able to rally through the downtrend yet.
 

 

Gold stocks remain in a relative downtrend as well, though the pattern is not as well developed as energy stocks.
 

 

By contrast, metals and mining stocks, which represent the base metals, have managed to rally through the relative downtrend and they are now showing signs of a nascent market leadership role.
 

 

These chart patterns are constructive for the commodity complex as a whole, though it is still a little early for traders to aggressively take long positions in this sector.

The bull case for oil

Tactically, oil prices have been strengthening for the last two weeks on the news of falling production and better than expected inventory declines. Knowledge Leaders Capital (formerly known as GaveKal) summarized the intermediate term bull case for oil prices well in their quarterly presentation.

First, global demand is rising.
 

 

Low oil prices have provoked a supply response. Investment in new production has fallen dramatically.
 

 

In the meantime, old fields are getting depleted. Annual depletion rates are equivalent to projected OPEC cutbacks.
 

 

Could US shale and tight oil save the day? Well…the productivity of shale formations have either peaked or plateaued. While producers can easily ramp up production quickly in the short-run, it doesn’t solve the longer supply problem unless exploration budgets rise accordingly.
 

 

In the interim, where will the oil come from? The rate of discoveries have fallen dramatically, largely because of reduced exploration budgets.
 

 

Putting it all together, the Renaissance Macro oil demand model price forecast is $90 per barrel.
 

 

By contrast, a more conservative inventory model calls for oil prices to rise to the $60-65 level in the next 6-18 months.
 

 

Setting up for an inflation surprise

Should oil and gold prices start to rise, it would have important implications for monetary policy. I have pointed out before that the bond market’s inflationary expectations (blue line) are correlated with changes in gold and oil prices (black line).
 

 

Today, the inflation outlook looks very benign. In fact, there is a long of hand wringing over how the lack of inflation is affecting monetary policy, not just at the Fed, but at the ECB as well.
 

 

Instead, I would argue that a turnaround in commodity prices would put upward pressure on inflationary expectations. In turn, that would also put upward pressure on central bankers to continue their course of monetary policy normalization.

That will the surprise of the 2nd half of 2017. Such a development will also be negative for equity prices. It is said that no one rings a bell at the top. Watch oil and gold prices for signs that someone is ascending the tower to ring the bell.

The near-term market outlook

Looking out the next few weeks, the outlook is a little mixed. On one hand, it’s hard to argue with price momentum and all-time highs in the major averages. What’s more, the fresh highs were achieved with no signs of negative divergences. The SPX Advance-Decline Line is behaving well and it has confirmed the fresh highs in SPX.
 

 

As well, signals from the high yield (HY) bond market is showing signs of rising risk appetite.
 

 

On the other hand, FactSet reported that while Q2 Earnings Seasons earnings and sales beat rates were well above their historical averages, forward 12-month EPS fell. This surprising development will have to be monitored to see if it represents just a blip in the data, or the start of something more serious.
 

 

Indeed, the latest BAML Fund Manager Survey shows that global growth expectations are starting to roll over. The downward EPS revisions may be reflective of that change in trend.
 

 

As well, Jeroen Blokland pointed out that falling estimate revisions is a global trend. Estimate revisions in June were considerably lower than they were during the January to May period.
 

 

The chart below confirms the trend of falling revisions observed by Blokland. It shows the history of weekly forward 12-month US EPS revisions from FactSet since early May. As the chart shows, the pace of forward revisions has been decelerating, even if the last data point, which showed a negative revision, is excluded.
 

 

Another disturbing sign for the bull camp comes from the Barron’s report of insider transactions, which saw a spike in sales by this group of “smart investors”. This is a noisy data series and there was a similar spike about three months ago, which could have been caused by a “quiet period” during earnings season when insiders could not trade. Nevertheless, the appearance of twin data blips from both EPS estimate revisions and insider activity is worrisome.
 

 

Possible consolidation next week

Looking to the week ahead, my base case scenario calls for a period of consolidation. The SPX hourly chart shows that RSI-5 reached an overbought reading of 90 twice last week. Historically, such episodes have been resolved with brief periods of consolidation before a major directional move.
 

 

Jeff Hirsch of Almanac Trader observed that the historical pattern of the next few days in July tends to have a weak bias.
 

 

My inner investor continues to be constructive and bullish on stocks. My inner trader is giving the bull case the benefit of the doubt and remains long the market. He is inclined to lighten up his long positions as a way of managing risk as we approach the FOMC meeting next week.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Things you don’t see at market bottoms: Wild claims edition

It is said that while bottoms are events, but tops are processes. Translated, markets bottom out when panic sets in, and therefore they can be more easily identifiable. By contrast, market tops form when a series of conditions come together, but not necessarily all at the same time.

I have stated that while I don’t believe that the stock market has made its final cyclical top, we are in the late stages of a bull market (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead and Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull). Nevertheless, psychology is getting a little frothy, which represent the pre-condition for a major top. This is just one post in a series of “thing you don’t see at market bottoms”. Past editions of this series include:

It is said that one of the signs of a market top is when participants (and scam artists) start making wild claims for the future. Here are some examples:

  • USA Today: Millennials fear of stocks could cost them $3.3 million
  • Chinese offshore property stampede: Start of a trend?
  • A sucker born every minute, or more signs of unbridled greed

USA Today: Millennials, buy stocks!

It is said that the magazine headline is a sign of a market turning point. When popular magazines write a story, it usually indicates the end of a trend. So it was with some surprise when I read that USA Today breathlessly proclaimed that Millennials’ fear of stocks could cost them $3.3 million.

Here is the graphic that goes with the analysis.
 

 

This study reminds me of the old days when a corporate treasurer would hire an actuarial consultant to evaluate the company`s defined benefit plan. The discussion would go something like this. “The assets of the pension plan is $X. Make it work so that we don’t look under-funded.” The actuary would then feel pressured to make unrealistic return assumptions in order to “make it work”.

If you read the fine print, the USA Today return projections are laughable. They are based on the historical returns of 4.6% on 3-month T-Bills and 10.96% returns on equities. Someone please tell me where I can find a 4.6% return on a T-Bill. Then explain the market implications of such an environment. It would take a highly aggressive Fed for the T-Bill yield to reach 4.6%. Moreover, the following FactSet chart of forward P/E ratios shows that current forward P/E levels are highly elevated compared to its own history. In effect, some of the past returns for the equity asset class can be attributable to multiple expansion. Can we realistically expect a similar level of P/E expansion in the future? If so, what does that mean for interest rates (and is that consistent with a 4.6% T-Bill yield)?
 

 

To realistically achieve a return of 11.0% on equities, the market would need a downdraft of 50-70% in equity prices. To get to a 4.6% T-Bill yield, interest rates would have to rise dramatically.

The Chinese offshore property stampede

In support of its Chinese offshore property business, Juwai recently projected that Chinese investors will spend USD 1 trillion on offshore real investment in the next 10 years (via Huffington Post Canada):

Toronto and Montreal have surpassed Vancouver as the Canadian cities that Chinese homebuyers are most interested in, according to data from Juwai, China’s largest real estate portal.

The company predicts that Chinese investors will pour some $1 trillion (C$1.27 trillion) into real estate around the world over the next decade, of which a considerable amount is likely to land in Canada. The country is the fourth-largest destination for Chinese real estate investment, behind the U.S., Australia and Hong Kong.

 

It’s not that hard to project trends into the future. There are signs of a voracious Chinese appetite for American real estate. The Avison Young Q2 review of Manhattan commercial real estate reported that Chinese interests had accounted for roughly half of large scale property transactions:

Increasing foreign capital is redefining the City’s buyer pool, with a particular affinity to the trophy asset class. Chinese capital has accounted for half of the total dollars invested since the beginning of 2017, which has helped buoy market volume and pricing. Threatening a strong market rebound are the capital controls from the Chinese government, rising interest rates, the wall of maturing CMBS debt originated around the 2007 peak, and e-retail’s war on brick and mortar stores.

Christine Duhaime, a Canadian lawyer who specializes in money laundering issues, recently estimated that about $2 trillion in corruption proceeds had been spirited offshore from China, most of which went into property investments.

Is this the start of a trend of outbound Chinese fund flows? Or does this feel like past episodes of hubris, such as:

  • Bob Campeau‘s foray into American retailers Bloomingdale’s and Federated Department Stores using junk bond financing during the mid-1980’s
  • Japanese investors buying up American trophy properties, such as Pebble Beach, in the late 1980’s
  • Jean-Marie Messier (Moi-Même-Maître-du-Monde), the CEO of Vivendi, making wild takeovers for the media assets of Seagram’s, MP3.com, Houghton Mifflin, and USA Networks before and after the peak of the Tech Bubble. The episode culminated with Messier using corporate funds to buy a $17.5 million apartment for his personal use in New York City. We know what happened to the TMT sector afterwards.

A sucker born every minute

In the meantime, the British Columbia Securities Commission has warned about anyone raising funds with the so-called “Vancouver Stock Exchange Corp” (via Global News).
 

 

The Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) was merged with the TSX in 1999 and its functions were primarily taken over by the TSX-Venture Exchange. The VSE no longer exists. The new “Vancouver Stock Exchange Corp” (VSEC) has an office in Kitimat, BC, and in Shenzhen, China. For readers who are unfamiliar with Kitimat, here is a map of British Columbia, with Vancouver and Kitimat shown, to illustrate the remoteness of the VSEC office.
 

 

In the current environment, get-rich-quick speculators are crawling out the woodwork. The following tweet is an antidote to the USA Today’s story on under-invested millennials.
 

 

This will not end well, but…

Bullish sentiment excesses that I have cited in this and past posts represent a “this will not end well” investment story. But sentiment doesn’t function well as precise market timing tools. For now, the nowcast of short-term indicators such as initial jobless claims remain bullish…
 

 

So does forward EPS estimate revisions (via FactSet).
 

 

At the same time, investors should recognize that overall risk levels are rising and react accordingly, depending to their own investment time horizon.

What’s the upside target in this rally?

Mid-week market update: As the major US equity indices reach fresh all-time highs, it is time to ponder the question of how far the current upleg is likely to carry us. While technical analysts have several techniques available at their fingertips, I rely mostly on the venerable point and figure charting system (click link for primer), which was first used in the late 19th Century, to determine upside targets.

Using the point and figure charting tool at stockcharts, I get an upside target of 2549 for the SPX with a traditional box size and 3 point reversal.
 

 

If I vary the parameters to a 1% box size and a 3 point reversal, the upside target is 2524. The difference seems to be the width of the consolidation pattern and the site of the upside breakout.
 

 

Is the target 2524 or 2549? What gives?

Your mileage will vary

Good technical analysts understand that point and figure charting is a tool. Just like any tool, it has its limitations. Your mileage will vary, depending on what question you ask of the tool.

With the point and figure tool, you can use different time frames, such as daily, weekly, or monthly prices, depending on your own time horizon. As well, you can vary the sensitivity of your analysis with differing box sizes and reversal parameters.

As a test of the sensitivity of this tool, the table below shows the SPX upside targets using daily, weekly, and monthly prices. As well, I used both traditional, 0.5% and 1% box sizes, along with 2 and 3 box reversals.
 

 

The results were remarkably similar. There were a few outliers, which are highlighted. Most of the upside targets were clustered between 2500 and 2600. The monthly price analysis using a 1% box and 3 box reversal arrived at an astounding 3350 target. On the other hand, monthly price analysis using a 2 box reversal, regardless of box size, showed that market had exceeded its target.

The median upside target 2536, and the average was 2586. If we take the midpoint of the two, we get 2561. Interestingly, the midpoint of the median and average targets if we removed the highlighted outliers comes to 2563, which is indicative of the stability of the estimates.

Based on this analysis, the target for this upside breakout is 2536 to 2586, or about 2560.

Nearing THE TOP?

Here is some context to those upside targets. What is remarkable about this exercise is the convergence of the targets to the 2560 region using daily, weekly, and monthly prices (except for a few outliers). By implication, a long-term cyclical top is not very far away.

About a year ago, I wrote that the likely cyclical market top would occur in the second half of 2017 (see The roadmap to a 2017 market top). I amended that forecast in May 2017 to allow for the timing of a top to extend to the first half of 2018 (see When does the market top out?).

As stock prices break out to new highs, but with the upside point and figure target only about 4% away, the technical picture suggests that a market top is likely to occur in the next few months, if not weeks. With the Fear and Greed Index at an elevated reading of 73, it also suggests that the market is likely to top out when this index reaches an overbought condition.
 

 

My base case scenario still calls for a Fed induced economic slowdown from tight monetary policy, which drags down stock prices (see How the bull will die). There are still many moving parts to this scenario. Much depends on the path of wages, inflation, the growth outlook, the Fed’s reaction function, as well as possible changes at the Fed’s Board of Governors. I am not ready to turn bearish just yet.

My short-term indicators are mainly bullish, but I remain, as always, data dependent.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

In search of the elusive inflation surge

US bond yields began to settle down last week when Fed Chair Janet Yellen stated in her Congressional testimony that the neutral rate for Fed Funds is roughly the inflation rate, which is much lower than market expectations. In addition, she allowed that the Fed is likely to re-evaluate its tightening path in light of tame inflation figures.

Even Fed Governor Lael Brainard, whose Fedspeak had recently taken on a more hawkish tone lately, sounded dovish in a speech last week:

Once that [normalization] process begins, I will want to assess the inflation process closely before making a determination on further adjustments to the federal funds rate in light of the recent softness in core PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation…I will want to monitor inflation developments carefully, and to move cautiously on further increases in the federal funds rate, so as to help guide inflation back up around our symmetric target.

The June CPI print came in below expectations, which reinforced the view that low inflation releases may prompt a shallower path for rate hikes in 2017 and 2018. Brainard stated on Thursday, before the CPI release, “I don’t think anybody can give a fully satisfactory answer to why we’re seeing the inflation trajectory that we see today.”

In the past, we have seen inflationary surges whenever the unemployment rate falls substantially below 5%. The graph below depicts the unemployment rate (blue line, with the zero level set at 5%), with CPI (red line). The rise in inflation has been quite tame by historical standards, which is creating a dilemma for policy makers.
 

 

The Fed’s underlying model of inflation is the Phillips Curve, which posits a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. As the chart from this Money and Banking primer shows, the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment has been flattening since 2000. Falling unemployment should drive up wages, which is the price of labor, and put upward pressure on inflation. This time, the wage and inflation response has been muted.
 

 

Questions are being asked at the Fed. Is the Phillips Curve broken? Why aren’t wages rising?

The answer is “no”. Fresh analysis from Moody’s shows that the Phillips Curve is alive and well. Should the Fed pause in its tightening path, it will find itself behind the inflation fighting curve. This would set the stage for a series of staccato rate hikes next year that would undoubtedly push the economy into recession.

The “right” Phillips Curve

Adam Ozimek of Moody’s Analytics recently solved the wage growth mystery. Instead of comparing the unemployment rate to inflation, he found that the prime age non-employment rate was a much better fit when using the Phillips Curve as an analytical framework:

However, the unemployment rate is not the right measure of labor market slack right now. If instead we look at the prime age non-employment rate (which is 100% minus the prime aged employment rate), we see an even tighter wage Phillips curve. According to this curve, wage growth is exactly where we would expect given the level of slack in the labor market. To get to 3.5% to 4% or higher wage growth, this graph suggests another 3 percentage points of improvement in the non-employment rate will be needed.

 

Ozimek went on to state that the prime age labor market still had some slack left before wage inflation reaches 3.5%-4.0% wage growth. As last week’s JOLTS reports showed that the all important “quits” rate continues to rise, this signals continuing labor market strength.
 

 

These trends indicate that wage pressures should begin to appear in the near future.

Investment implications

What does that mean for investors?

As an investor, I find the exercise of watching for economic statistics that show up in the rear-view mirror somewhat disconcerting. Instead, I offer some real-time, or near real-time indicators to watch.

First, the S&P 500 and weekly initial unemployment claims has shown a remarkable pattern of inverse correlation during this cycle.
 

 

The chart below shows 5 year x 5 year inflation expectations (blue line), along with the average YoY change in oil and gold prices (black line). Commodity prices have shown themselves to be highly correlated to market based inflationary expectations. If gold and oil prices were to start turning up, rising inflationary expectations from the bond market will eventually pressure the Fed to adopt a more hawkish stance.
 

 

A glance at the Citigroup US Economic Surprise Index (ESI), which measures whether high frequency economic data is beating or missing expectations, shows that ESI is starting to bottom and turn up. This indicates a likely upturn in growth expectations, which should put upward pressure on commodity prices and inflationary expectations.
 

 

Johnny Bo Jakobsen of Nordea Markets observed that ESI typically sees a seasonal trough at about this time of year.
 

 

Too early to buy the inflation trade

Tactically, an analysis of the breadth of gold equities show that they are not quite ready to rally just yet. The silver/gold ratio, which measures the relationship between the high beta precious metal silver against gold, is still in a downtrend. As well, the % bullish metric (bottom panel) does not appear to be sufficiently washed out to indicate a durable bottom.
 

 

Downside risk for gold prices is limited. The latest Commitment of Traders report shows that speculative positions in gold are nearing capitulation levels, but may need a bit further to go (via Topdown Charts).
 

 

As well, energy equities remain in a relative downtrend against the market. Even though the XLE/SPY ratio shows signs of bottoming, I would prefer to see a rally through the relative downtrend line before embracing the rising inflation trade.
 

 

These trades are likely to take a few more weeks to develop. Investors can begin to accumulate positions and overweight resource sectors, while traders should watch for the upside breakout of inflationary expectations.

Looking for froth in the wrong places

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bullish

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

Where’s the Bubble?

Ben Carlson at A Wealth of Common Sense recently detailed the four criteria for a market bubble:

In a recent conversation with Meb Faber, William Bernstein discussed how his criteria for seeing a bubble has more to do with sociological factors than econometric indicators. Here are his four signs of a financial market bubble:

(1) Everyone around you is talking about stocks (or real estate or whatever the fad asset of the day is). And you should really start worrying when the people talking about getting rich in certain areas of the market don’t have a background in finance.

(2) When people begin quitting their jobs to day trade or become a mortgage broker.

(3) When someone exhibits skepticism about the prospects for stocks and people don’t just disagree with them, but they do so vehemently and tell them they’re an idiot for not understanding things.

(4) When you start to see extreme predictions. The example Bernstein gives is how the best-selling investment book in 1999 was Dow 36,000.

He said he’s not worried about a bubble at the moment but seeing 3 out of these 4 conditions being met would be a warning sign.

Despite my series on investor sentiment, Things you don’t see at see at market bottoms (which had four editions that were published 13-Jul-2017, 7-Jul-2017, 29-Jun-2017, and 23-Jun-2017), market psychology has not reached the “OMG I have to quit my job/mortgage the house to buy/trade the hot asset of the day”. While there are some excesses, such low levels of institutional cash (chart via Business Insider), the lack of over-the-top froth suggests that the next stock market downturn from a recession may be relatively mild in the manner of a 10-20% decline seen in the 1990 bear market.
 

 

While I am somewhat sympathetic to that view, investors who are looking for signs of froth are looking in the wrong places. One of the processes that occur in recessions the correction of excesses in the past expansion. Most of the real excesses are not to be found within US borders, but abroad.

The China Bubble

I have detailed in these pages of the risks posed by excessive Chinese debt (see How bad could a Chinese banking crisis get?) and outlined some scenarios of how it could all unravel (see How a China crash might unfold). This chart from Kevin Smith of Crescat Capital shows how the China bubble has migrated, mainly through hot-money flows into Australian and Canadian property (also see my post How China’s Great Ball of Money rolled into Canada).
 

 

One of the signs of excesses that accompany a market top is a surge in mergers and acquisition activity. Does this Bloomberg chart of Chinese outbound acquisitions count?
 

 

Chinese insurance conglomerates have been going on a shopping spree for overseas assets. One worrisome aspect of these deals is a pattern of the lack of positive free cash flow by acquiring companies, indicating that purchases have to funded by ever growing levels of debt from the banking system.
 

 

Business Insider recently detailed the vulnerability of the global financial system to changes in credit availability from China:

There is a new worry coming out of China, and it’s slowly taken hold of Wall Street.

The country’s government is cracking down on massive financial firms that have grown by making acquisitions overseas. You’ll recognize some of these names; Anbang Insurance, which recently bought the Waldorf Astoria; HNA; Fosun; Rossoneri; and Wanda.

So what happens to these overseas acquisitions if the money dries up?

Now, that doesn’t mean these companies will go bankrupt. Credit Suisse pointed out that the Chinese government isn’t interested in shocks to the system either, so it may backstop disaster (and it may not). Even so, that means these once high-flying international dealmakers are now pariah’s in China’s banking sector and will have to use their cash reserves to pay down debt for no-one-knows-how long.

“If they cannot honour their financial obligations, there is a chance that it could create a domino effect on other institutions/individuals which have lent money to them,” said Credit Suisse. “Among them, the development of Anbang Insurance is worth the most attention, as it probably is having the closest relationship with retail investors through its insurance products. ”

This relationship is likely why Anbang Chairman Wu Xiaohui — who last year met with President Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, about investing in Kushner’s real estate company — was taken into custody by Chinese authorities earlier this year. Anbang also has a 20% stake in China’s largest private bank, China Minsheng Bank.

Wu’s disappearance happened much like most executive disappearances do in China. It started with a rumor, which was countered with a denial, until finally the story was eventually confirmed.

Sometimes that’s how bankruptcies start too.

This table from a separate Bloomberg article shows how solvency ratios for Chinese insurance companies have deteriorated.
 

 

The risk is a series of cascading defaults with unknown effects on the global financial system. The latest report from BIS warned about high indicators of stress in the banking systems in China, Hong Kong, and Canada, which is one of the countries with high debt levels shown in the Kevin Smith chart above.
 

 

Earlier this year, International Business Times reported that the IMF cited the risk of a global recession should China experience a hard landing because of extensive financial linkages with the rest of the world:

An economic crisis in China could result in a world-wide recession, warned the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This was because China’s financial links with the rest of the global economy was set to increase, the organisation said ahead of its spring conference in Washington next week. “It is likely that China’s spillovers to global financial markets will increase considerably in the next few years”, the IMF said.

Canada and the Quinoa Problem

Canada can be regarded as a case study of the aforementioned linkages, largely because of a flood of Chinese money into the property markets in Vancouver and Toronto.

The causes of the Canadian property bubble (yes, it is a bubble) comes from the combination of several factors. First, excessive demand from foreign buyers, mainly from Mainland China. The price rise was further exacerbated by low interest rates, which pulled in local speculators who piled into the market. If you are looking for the William Bernstein criteria of a bubble, come to Vancouver or Toronto:

(1) Everyone around you is talking about real estate. (One of the major issues in the last provincial election in British Columbia, which is where Vancouver is located, was housing affordability).

(2) When people begin quitting their jobs to enter real estate. (One acquaintance quit his job in a high yield management organization to get into property management.) And you should really start worrying when the people talking about getting rich in certain areas of the market don’t have a background in finance. (As a point of reference, WorkSafeBC is the provincial agency that deals with worker injuries and disabilities).
 

 

(3) When someone exhibits skepticism about the prospects for property and people don’t just disagree with them, but they do so vehemently and tell them they’re an idiot for not understanding things. (Unusual contortions by local real estate boosters to justify why Vancouver houses are more expensive than New York and beachfront Malibu).

(4) When you start to see extreme predictions.

Amber Kanwar of BNN recently pointed out that real estate transfer fees are roughly 2% of GDP in Canada (compared to about 1.5% in the US at the peak of the last bubble).
 

 

To put the 2% of GDP into some context, NATO countries are targeting defense spending of 2% of GDP. As the chart below shows, Canada is only spending 1% of GDP on defense, which is especially important given Donald Trump’s complaints about defense spending levels of NATO members. In effect, real estate transfer fees are twice the size of the Canadian defense budget.
 

 

BNN also reported that 27% of Canadians are in over their head on their mortgage obligations, and this was before the BoC raised rates last week:

An alarming number of house-poor Canadians are teetering close to the edge in terms of meeting their debt obligations, according to a poll conducted on behalf of MNP. The report from the chartered accountancy firm says even a modest increase in interest rates could push many homeowners over the edge.

“Three in ten home owners say that they will be faced with financial difficulties if the value of their home goes down,” the report read. “Even if home values don’t decline in the near future; more than a quarter of Canadians (27 per cent) who have a mortgage agree that they are ‘in over their head’ with their current mortgage payments.”

In the meantime, the property markets in Vancouver and Toronto suffer from a “quinoa problem”. Quinoa was originally grown in the Andean regions of Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Chile. When the West discovered quinoa as a food source, foreigners began to bid up the price of quinoa, and local inhabitants could not afford to use it as a food source. The same thing has happened in Vancouver and Toronto. As local residents began to get priced out of those cities, developers began to market new construction offshore. As an example, see this sponsored article in SCMP in Hong Kong extolling the virtues of Vancouver and Toronto property.

These kinds of financial excesses not only put the Chinese economy at risk, but contagion risk has spread to countries that have seen a surge of Chinese demand for property. Indeed, the IMF has expressed concerns about risks from high housing prices in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

European banking not fixed

I had originally envisaged a global slowdown sparked by Fed tightening that slows the American economy and then spreads to China through the trade channel. The emergence of over-leveraged Chinese financial conglomerates with overseas interest raise the risk of contagion through the finance channel as well. In particular, financial stress would be heightened in Hong Kong because of the HKDUSD peg as rising US interest rates will force HK rates upwards.

Under such a scenario, the eurozone banking systems is a source of concern. Vítor Constâncio of the European Central Bank recently openly worried about nearly €1 trillion of unresolved non-performing loans in the eurozone banking system. That’s because Europe never fixed the problems of excessive bank leverage that caused much of the problems in the last crisis.

The “financial innovation” of CoCo bonds, which were supposed to have more equity-like characteristics and be part of the Tier 1 capital cushion, does not seem to solved the problem of shoring up bank capital. FT Alphaville recently detailed the unforeseen consequences of CoCo bonds (AT1) with the failure of Banco Popular.

One flaw with additional tier 1 bonds is that, while they have in-built triggers which boost a bank’s capital ratio, they also act as extremely effective triggers, or warning signals, for depositors to place their cash elsewhere.

The effect of the secondary market for AT1 here exacerbates the existing problem of publicly traded banks, which may be vulnerable to retail or corporate withdrawals in the instance of a sudden share price collapse. If AT1s were hit while the bank were still running, its easy to imagine an extremely negative response from depositors.

Once the prices of the AT1 bonds started to fall, depositors took that as a signal to bail, which exacerbated the solvency problems faced by Banco Popular.

Bottom line: While recessionary effects are likely to be mostly contained within US borders, the same cannot be said outside the US. While the most likely trigger is rising US interest rates, we cannot forecast their effects, largely because the nature and magnitude of the transmission mechanisms. Will the primary effects occur through the trade channel, or financial channel? We have no idea.

So far, this is a “this will not end well” story with an unknown trigger, and unknown timing. Investors should be aware of these risks, but not overreact.

The path forward

For now, investors should remain calm. Beijing still has many levers to cushion a downturn. Callum Thomas at Topdown Charts pointed out that M2 money growth remains supportive of liquidity in China.
 

 

The latest update from John Butters at FactSet shows that preliminary Q2 Earnings Season beat rates for both sales and earnings are well above historical averages. More importantly, forward 12-month EPS estimates continue to rise, indicating improving fundamental momentum.
 

 

In addition, the latest update of insider activity from Barron`s shows that these “smart investors” are still buying.
 

 

In short, the intermediate term outlook remains bullish. Stay calm and stay long equities.

The week ahead

Looking to the week ahead, the SPX staged an upside breakout to an all-time high. The index appears to be overbought on the hourly chart and could see some weakness early in the week. In the past two months, RSI-5 readings of 90 or more have resolved themselves with either a sideways consolidation or a mild pullback.
 

 

Short-term indicators with a 1-2 day time horizon from Index Indicators also show an overbought reading.
 

 

Longer term indicators appear to be constructive for the bulls and not overbought. Further positive momentum could carry the market to further highs.
 

 

Looking out to the next few weeks, the Fear and Greed Index remains at a neutral reading. As long as the positive fundamental backdrop remains in place, stock prices are likely to grind up to new highs this summer.
 

 

My inner investor remains bullish on stocks. My inner trader is bullishly positioned, but may pare back some of his long positions should the market remain strong on Monday in anticipation of a short-term pullback.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Things you don’t see at market bottoms, Retailphoria edition

It is said that while bottoms are events, but tops are processes. Translated, markets bottom out when panic sets in, and therefore they can be more easily identifiable. By contrast, market tops form when a series of conditions come together, but not necessarily all at the same time.

I have stated that while I don’t believe that the stock market has made its final cyclical top, we are in the late stages of a bull market (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead and Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull). Nevertheless, psychology is getting a little frothy, which represent the pre-condition for a major top.

As a result, this is another post in an occasional series of lists of “things you don’t see at market bottoms”. This week, I focus on more signs of retail giddiness.

  • The TD-Ameritrade Investor Movement Index hits an all-time high
  • E-Trade parties like it`s 1999
  • If the market is chasing yield, corporations can get away with murder

TD-Ameritrade IMX at ATH

The TD-Ameritrade Investor Movement Index measures the sentiment of the firm’s customers. The latest update shows IMX at an all-time high since its inception in 2011.
 

 

E-Trade parties like it`s 1999

I present this E-Trade ad without further comment, other than it is reminiscent of a certain other era of investing.
 

 

Cov-lite goes wild

Tracy Alloway highlighted this chart of plunging covenant quality of new US corporate bonds. If the market is chasing yield, issuers can virtually get away with murder…
 

U-S-A! U-S-A!

Mid-week market update: Having reviewed sector rotation last week (see More evidence of an emerging reflationary rebound), it is time to apply the same analysis to countries and regions.

First, let’s start with a primer of our analytic tool. Relative Rotation Graphs, or RRG charts, are a way of depicting the changes in leadership in different groups, such as sectors, countries or regions, or market factors. The charts are organized into four quadrants. The typical group rotation pattern occurs in a clockwise fashion. Leading groups (top right) deteriorate to weakening groups (bottom right), which then rotates to lagging groups (bottom left), which changes to improving groups (top left), and finally completes the cycle by improving to leading groups (top right) again.

Here is the RRG chart of the major countries and regions of the world. All ETFs are priced in USD and therefore all currency effects are already part of the returns. The rotation analysis was performed relative to MSCI All-Country World Index (ACWI).
 

 

My interpretation of the RRG chart indicates that US stocks are poised to take the leadership position again, after a brief hiatus. Emerging leadership can also be found in the resource producing countries of the world, such as Australia, Canada, Latin America, and Russia. European and Asian stocks, which had been the leaders, are starting to consolidate and they are likely to begin to weaken on a relative basis. These patterns are consistent with my thesis of a developing reflationary blow-off equity market top.

Eurozone: A Merkel and Macron acid test

Let’s review each region, one by one, starting with the Eurozone. Eurozone equities, as represented by the Euro STOXX 50 (FEZ), has shown a history of “false dawns”. The chart below shows the relative performance of FEZ against ACWI for the past 10 years. While FEZ has been in a long-term relative downtrend against ACWI during that period, it has exhibited a pattern of rallying out of a relative downtrend, consolidate, and the resume its underperformance again. Each time, the market has been seduced by the false promise that the European authorities have finally gotten their act together, only to be disappointed.
 

 

Will the promise of a Merkel/Macron led Europe prove to be another mirage? The market is starting to show some signs of disappointment, despite the series of better than expected economic growth statistics emerging out of the euro area.

Investor sentiment is at crowded long levels, so expectations are high. The June 2017 BAML Fund Manager Survey shows institutions at a crowded long in eurozone equities.
 

 

Tony Welsh at Ned Davis Research also pointed out that funds flows into Europe have switched from net outflows last year to inflows. Europe is becoming the consensus long.
 

 

From an economic news perspective, the Citigroup Eurozone Economic Surprise Index is already at elevated levels. With bullish sentiment already elevated, the risk/reward ratio of upside to downside surprises is not favorable.
 

 

U-S-A!

By contrast, US ESI is bottoming and starting to turn up. As ESI is designed to be a mean reverting index that naturally adjusts to market expectations over time, the scope for American economic surprises is far higher than it is in Europe.
 

 

The relative performance of US stocks relative to ACWI is also starting to show some promise. SPY has rallied out of a relative downtrend against ACWI and it is now exhibiting a consolidation pattern.
 

 

If the standard RRG rotation pattern holds, then expect SPY to begin outperforming ACWI in the weeks ahead.

Chinese Asia rolling over?

Over in Asia, the stock indices of China’s major trading partners are starting to roll over in relative strength. The relative strength patterns of Asian indices reveal a mixed bag. China remains range-bound compared to ACWI, while Hong Kong and Singapore have violated their relative uptrends, and Taiwan and South Korea remain in relative uptrends.
 

 

The one anomalous pattern is Australia, which has rallied out of a relative downtrend and its relative strength is staring to turn up.

Late cycle leadership

The relative turnaround in Australia is consistent with a pattern shown by the stock indices of other resource based economies. The chart below shows the relative returns of Canada, Latin America, Russia, and South Africa. All are showing similar patterns of making relative bottoms and possible upturns.
 

 

These patterns are consistent with my thesis of a reflationary blow-off in global stocks (see Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull and More evidence of an emerging reflationary rebound). In all likelihood, the direction of the next major move in stock prices is up, rather than down.

Disclosure: Long SPXL, XIU.TO (TSX 60 ETF)

Are stocks being stalked by a silent Zombie Apocalypse?

There was some minor buzz on the internet when Jonathan Tepper tweeted the following BIS chart and rhetorically asked if zombie firms was the cause of falling productivity during this expansion. BIS defines a “zombie” firm as a company that has been listed for 10 years or more and has an EBIT interest coverage of less than 1. As the charts show, the number of “zombie” companies have been rising steadily, while advanced economy (AE) productivity and CapEx has been muted during this expansion.
 

 

While the zombie hypothesis has much intuitive appeal, especially to the permabear and doomster set, a deeper examination reveals some unanswered questions that casts doubt about this explanation for the muted productivity gains of this cycle.

Falling monetary velocity

There is much to be said about the zombie theory. I had pointed out in my last post (see A mid-year review of 2018 recession risk) that one anomaly we are seeing this cycle is the continued decline in monetary velocity. In the past, negative YoY real money supply growth had been a warning of recession, but past episodes of negative growth occurred in the context of rising velocity. This time, monetary velocity has been steadily falling, which may be interpreted as a failure of monetary policy to stimulate economic growth. Here is a history of M1 growth and velocity.
 

 

M2 growth and its velocity tells a similar story.
 

 

The rising presence of zombie companies could explain all that.

Japanese zombies

Japan has been the land of corporate zombies for quite some time. The banking system has had a long history of propping up insolvent firms as a way of deferring the recognition of bad loans. Indeed, Japanese monetary velocity has been falling since the bursting of their bubble and the commencement of their Lost Decades.
 

 

Zombie firms holding down productivity and CapEx has an intuitively appealing explanation. Izzy at FT Alphaville pointed out that if Uber in its present state were to be publicly listed could qualify as a zombie company in two years. This explains why zombie companies can survive. As long as unprofitable companies had sufficient financing capacity, either in the form of equity or additional debt, they can continue to operate.

By implication, easy central bank money and overly enthusiastic equity markets as a source of zombie financing is also an appealing thesis for the permabear and doomster set.

The productivity and velocity anomaly

However, there are a number of anomalies to that explanation. The chart below shows the history of productivity (blue line) and M2 velocity. Productivity had a tendency to jump after recessions, because companies saw sales ramp up while staffing levels remained lean. That combination caused an apparent jump in productivity levels. However, we can also observe two periods, the expansion of the 1960`s and early 1970`s, when productivity was high but monetary velocity was falling.
 

 

That is the first anomaly, namely the productivity and monetary velocity puzzle. It could be that zombie companies are only correlated with falling monetary velocity, and the effect is not causal.

The balance sheet puzzle

Another anomaly comes from Andrew Lapthorne of Societe Generale. Lapthorne has been known to be a permabear, but in this case, he throws a wrench into the zombie hypothesis (via FT). The chart below depicts the difference between the financing capacity of megacap stocks and smaller companies. Lapthorne worried aloud that the interest coverage ratios of smaller companies are already strained by historical standards. As the Fed begins to raise rates, the risk of widespread corporate stress will spike.
 

 

Here is a difficult question for the zombie hypothesis. If there are so many zombie companies with EBIT coverage below 1, shouldn’t the dark red line of small company interest coverage ratios be much higher by historical standards?

Something just doesn’t add up.

A mid-year review of 2018 recession risk

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bullish

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

What is the risk of recession?

Over at A Dash of Insight, Jeff Miller criticized WSJ reporter Greg Ip for writing what Miller consider to be a doomster-like article about rising recession market risk. He went on to accuse Ip of cherry picking data to make his point about a heightened risk environment, and concluded:

The entire article reads like a laundry list of points that would make sense to investors with limited knowledge of economics. That is why I am disappointed. My hope is that top journalists would help explain reality rather than feed fears stoked by so many others. This article will frighten investors. Is that what the author intends?

The issue of recession risk is important to investors because every recession has been accompanied by an equity bear market. So let me put in my two cents worth in my own assessment of recession risk for the American economy.
 

 

Some time ago, I created a Recession Watch page on my website. The recession risk criteria on the page was based on the framework specified by New Deal democrat. NDD used the work of Geoffrey Moore, the founder of ECRI, to create seven long leading indicators designed to spot recessions a year in advance (click on links for the latest FRED charts):

  • Corporate bond yields (Corporate bond yields have always made their most recent low over 1 year before the onset of the next recession)
  • Housing starts (Housing starts peaked at least one year before the next recession)
  • Real private residential fixed investment (Aside from the 1981 “double-dip,” and 1948, it has always peaked at least one year before the next recession)
  • Money supply (In addition to the 1981 “double dip,” on only 2 other occasions have these failed to turn negative at least 1 year before a recession)
  • Corporate profits and Proprietors` income, which can be a more timely proxy for corporate profits (Corporate profits have peaked at least one year before the next recession 8 of the last 11 times, one of the misses being the 1981 “double-dip.”)
  • Yield curve, which may not be relevant in the current interest rate environment (The yield curve inverted more than one year before the next recession about half the time)
  • Real retail sales (It has peaked 1 year or more before the next recession about half of the time)

A review of the seven indicators revealed both good news and bad news. Here are the details of each indicator, along with a discussion of the internals behind each indicator,

A healthy consumer (and jobs market)

Starting with the good news, the strongest indicator is real retail sales, which has been strong and shows no sign of turning down. It is difficult to see how the economy could collapse into recession if the consumer is still spending.
 

 

The key driver of retail sales is employment and wages. Friday`s June Jobs Report contained more good news than bad news. The good news is the headline Non-Farm Payroll (NFP) came in at 222K, which was well ahead of expectations. The closely watched participation rate edged up, indicating an expanding workforce, which raised the unemployment rate and reduced pressure on the Fed to raise rates. As well, average hourly earnings (AHE) came in at 0.2%, which was below expectations of 0.3%, indicating non-inflationary wage growth in the face of employment gains. Another positive that was buried in the report was the continuing gains in temporary jobs, whose peaks have tended to lead past NFP peaks.
 

 

It was a solid report, and we should see more details about the labor market next week when the Labor Market Conditions Index is released Monday and from the JOLTS report Tuesday. From the consumer`s viewpoint, however, there was one minor blemish that came in the form of AHE. As the chart below shows, AHE has been barely keeping pace with inflation. If real AHE does not show any progress, then how does real retail sales grow, unless the household takes extraordinary measures such as digging into savings or by borrowing?
 

 

Bottom line: The consumer is still healthy, but spending growth may be start to get pressured.

Whither corporate profits?

Corporate profits have had a record of peaking before past recessions, which makes it a good long leading indicator. As the chart below shows, corporate profits, whether normalized by unit labor costs or by inflation, have peaked for this cycle, which is an ominous sign.
 

 

The quarterly corporate profits data series is released with a significant lag, which lessens the utility of this indicator. However, proprietors’ income is a more timely proxy for corporate profits. Proprietors’ income has not peaked and remains strong.
 

 

Forward looking indicators such as Street estimates from FactSet remains strong. Early indicators of the results Q2 earnings season show that both earnings and sales beat rates are above historical averages.
 

 

As well, Ned Davis Research reported that forward EPS estimate revisions for the MSCI All-Country World Index are still rising.
 

 

Score corporate profits as a positive, for now.

Yield curve

The yield curve has historically been an uncanny signal of future recession. The 2/10 Treasury curve, or spread, has inverted before every recession since 1980. However, it is unclear how effective this indicator is likely to be in this era of near zero rates and quantitative easing.
 

 

The yield curve had been flattening for much of 2017, which is usually interpreted as the bond market discounting slower economic growth. It recently steepened dramatically. However, much of the steepening effect can be attributable to hawkish comments from the ECB about the prospects for the reduction of their QE program. In effect, an ECB induced “taper tantrum” has traveled across the Atlantic.
 

 

Rank the yield curve indicator as neutral, though the readings are confusing.

Money supply

One of the best known monetary equations in economics is PQ = MV, where P (price) X Q (quantity) = overall economy, or GDP, is equal to M (money supply) X V (monetary velocity). Theory holds that V is held constant over time, so the quantity of money determines how much liquidity is in the economy to power growth. Too much money sloshing around the economy will result in inflation. Too little, you get recession.

Here is the chart of real M1 and M2 growth over time. Real money supply growth has historically turned negative before past recessions. Current reading are still positive, but money growth is decelerating. The current expansion is unusual in that M1 velocity (dark blue line) has turned up in past cycles, but haven`t even risen once during this cycle and continues to fall.
 

 

The above chart uses a monthly M1 and M2 money supply data series to coincide with the monthly CPI data. Here are more timely weekly nominal money supply data series overlaid with monthly CPI. The story remains the same. Money growth is decelerating, though real growth is not negative yet.
 

 

Rank this indicator as neutral to negative, and deteriorating.

Is housing rolling over?

One of the key canaries in the coalmine of the American economy is the housing and construction sector. That’s because of the extreme cyclical nature of that industry. The latest data shows that both noisy housing starts and housing permits tends appear to have peaked for the cycle, which is a negative.
 

 

Another way to gauge the health of the housing and construction sector is real private residential investment, which amounts to spending on private housing as a percentage of GDP. This metric (black line) has not rolled over, but it is a quarterly data series that is reported with a delay, compared to the noisy monthly housing starts and permits data. Looking ahead, the recent rise in long bond yields is pushing up mortgage rates, and that will be another headwind for housing.
 

 

Bottom line: The housing sector looks wobbly. Rank this sector as a negative.

Corporate bond yields

Corporate bond yields have historically bottomed well before the onset of the next recession. Corporate yields bottomed a year ago, but this indicator has had a history of being extremely early in its recessionary warnings.
 

 

The midyear winner…

When I put it all together, the snapshot shows two positive, two negative, and three neutral indicators, with a negative direction of change. If this was a race and if were to end now, the verdict would call for low recession risk. Greg Ip would be declared an excessive worry wart and should be banished to write for Zero Hedge.

However, the race is no sprint but a marathon. Much of the future direction of recession risk depends on Fed policy, which is becoming increasing hawkish in tone.

The Fed policy wildcard

Even though the nowcast snapshot of recession risk remains relatively low, aggressive Fed policy to normalize monetary policy is likely to significantly raise the odds of a recession in 2018. Last Wednesday’s release of the FOMC minutes had the financial press interpreting the minutes as “deep divisions within the Fed”. Tim Duy cut through the BS and explained the “divisions” this way.
 

 

Recently Fedspeak from the important voices within the FOMC, such as Yellen and New York Fed President Dudley showed a determination to stay the course and normalize policy. Writing at Bloomberg, Duy thinks that the Yellen Fed is changing its focus towards financial stability as an objective:

Core leadership at the Federal Reserve appears determined to normalize policy via interest-rate hikes and balance-sheet reduction. But they have run up against a significant roadblock because the inflation data stubbornly refuse to cooperate with their forecast. Don’t expect that to deter leaders of the U.S. central bank just yet. They generally view the inflation weakness as transitory. A labor market circling around full employment serves as the justification they need to keep their foot on the brake.

And if that weren’t enough, they can pivot their focus toward financial stability. Indeed, that’s already under way. But be warned: That road will almost certainly lead to excessive tightening. In it you can see one path by which this expansion comes to an end.

Does that mean the return of the Yellen Put? Well, sort of. But Duy thinks such a shift brings enormous risks as the Fed does not have a roadmap that specifies a well-test reaction function. Consequently, they are more likely to fall behind the curve and react too late:

When central bankers lose focus on their primary mandates — inflation and unemployment — the odds of a policy mistake rise sharply. Remember that the most likely cause of a sustained drop in asset prices will be a recession and the associated fall in profits. That means that if central bankers wait until asset prices roll over before they stop tightening, they have almost certainly waited too long. I don’t think the Fed is in imminent danger of making such a mistake, but I can see the genesis of such a mistake if the bank turns rate decisions too much toward financial stability concerns.

If the Fed were to stay on this path, then expect the rate hike and balance sheet normalization path to be far more hawkish than the market expects. The hawks have plenty of ammunition to justify their course of action. The latest research from Goldman Sachs (via CNBC) which suggests that the opioid epidemic is affecting the employment eligibility of the labor force may provide the Fed a figleaf to justify ignoring feeble rise in the labor force participation rate and proceed with its normalization policy. As well, any likely Trump appointees to the Fed’s Board of Governors, as well as possible Fed chair replacement, are likely to lean towards a rules-based approaches to monetary policy and be even more hawkish than Janet Yellen (see A Fed preview: What happens in 2018?).

With the nowcast of recession risk reading in neutral, but deteriorating, how many much rate hikes and balance sheet reductions will recession risk rises into the danger zone?

Investment implications

Here is where the rubber meets the road. In light of these recession risk readings and likely path of Fed policy, what should an investor do?

Barry Ritholz recently wrote a Bloomberg article that castigated the doomsters, An Expert’s Guide to Calling Market Tops. To sidestep the problems that Ritholz hat identified, I prefer an approach of outlining an analytical framework ahead of time and then applying that framework to the current data.

Some time ago, I laid out a model for calling a market top for long term investors (see Building the ultimate market timing model). The technique calls for using a model to determine recession risk. If recession risk is high, or if it is evident that the economy is in a recession, use moving average techniques to take you out and back into the equity market. It is an extremely low turnover strategy that is useful for long-term investors who don’t want to trade a lot.

So where are we now? Despite the clouds on the horizon, the nowcasts of market and economic outlooks remain positive. FactSet‘s analysis of forward 12-month EPS revisions continue to be positive, which is bullish. As long as the Trump Administration doesn’t impose tariffs on steel and initiate a trade war, which could have unpredictable effects on the earnings outlook, the macro backdrop is bullish.

As well, Barron’s latest update of insider activity is constructive for further equity gains.
 

 

The sector rotation script based on a reflationary rebound that I wrote about is developing more or less as expected (see More evidence of a reflationary rebound). Capital-goods intensive industrial stocks are staging upside relative breakouts and assuming the market leadership mantle. The chart below depict the float weighted Industrial market performance in the top panel, and the equal weighted Industrial market performance in the bottom panel. The equal weighted relative breakout is of particular importance because of the dominance of heavyweight GE in the Industrial index.
 

 

The cyclically sensitive industrial metals are also holding up well, and they are staying above their 50 and 200 day moving averages.
 

 

The VIX Index rose above its upper Bollinger Band and mean reverted below over a week ago and flashed a SPX buy signal, which didn’t work. The same buy signal occurred last Friday, just as the index tested its 50 day moving average and exhibited a bullish divergence on RSI-5.
 

 

Even NASDAQ breadth is holding up relatively well despite the recent weakness.
 

 

As we proceed through Earnings Season in the upcoming weeks, expect the market to grind upwards in a choppy fashion as it reacts to the day-to-day earnings news from individual companies. My inner investor remains bullish on equities, and my inner trader got long the market last week.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

The things you don’t see at market bottoms, bullish bandwagon edition

It is said that while bottoms are events, but tops are processes. Translated, markets bottom out when panic sets in, and therefore they can be more easily identifiable. By contrast, market tops form when a series of conditions come together, but not necessarily all at the same time.

I have stated that while I don’t believe that the stock market has made its final cyclical top, we are in the late stages of a bull market (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead and Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull). Nevertheless, psychology is getting a little frothy, which represent the pre-condition for a major top.

As a result, this is another post in an occasional series of lists of “things you don’t see at market bottoms”. This week, I focus on the theme of further signs of the bullish bandwagon.

To summarize, Callum Thomas of Topdown Charts constructed a Euphoriameter, consisting of forward P/E, VIX (inverted), and bullish sentiment. Readings are highly elevated, though they have not reached the highs seen at the last cycle top.
 

 

Surging Street bullishness

In addition, the BAML Sell Side Indicator, which measures the asset allocation of Street strategists, has proven to be a good contrarian indicator. Currently, Street bullishness is surging, and BAML strategist Savita Subramanian wrote, “The recent inflection from skepticism to optimism could be the first step toward the market euphoria that we typically see at the end of bull markets and that has been glaringly absent so far in the cycle.”
 

 

I agree. Just like the “Euphoriameter”, readings are rising and highly elevated, but it is too early to declare this a contrarian sell signal just yet.

Bob Shiller gets really, really bullish

Bob Shiller, who developed the CAPE valuation metric that shows stock markets to be richly priced, stated in a CNBC interview that upside potential is up to 50% from current levels. He did, however, qualify that remark:

Stocks are “highly priced now, which means I don’t expect them to outperform so much,” he said. “But for a long-term investor and most people are, I think there should be a place for stocks in the portfolio and they could go up a lot from where they are now … they could also go down.”

Retail investors jump on the bandwagon
There are other indications that the retail investor is jumping on the bullish bandwagon. The latest AAII asset allocation survey shows that equity allocations are at levels not seen since 2005. The asset allocation survey is not to be confused with the weekly AAII opinion survey. The former asks what people are actually doing with their money, compared to their opinion of the markets, whose survey results can be volatile and move around from week to week.

Equity allocations among individual investors rose to their highest level in more than a decade last month. The June AAII Asset Allocation Survey also shows fixed-income holdings at a multi-year low.

Stock and stock fund allocations rose by 1.4 percentage points to 68.8%. This is the largest allocation to equities since April 2005 (70.3%). June was the 51st consecutive month that equity allocations were above their historical average of 60.5%.

Bond and bond fund allocations declined 0.5 percentage points to 15.0%. Fixed-income allocations were last lower in May 2009 (14.2%). The historical average is 16.0%.

T-D Ameritrade does a similar survey of their client accounts to determine the level of retail investor optimism about the stock market. The June survey results have not been released yet, but the latest May readings show that bullishness is highly elevated, though they are not a record levels.
 

 

And finally, there is this tweet from Ben Carlson.
 

 

Need I say more?

More evidence of an emerging reflationary rebound

Mid-week market update: Further to my last post (see Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull), There are numerous signs that the market’s animal spirits are getting set for a reflationary stock market rally. First of all, the BAML Fund Manager Survey shows that a predominant majority of institutional managers believe that we are in the late cycle phase of an expansion.
 

 

Poised for a reflationary rebound

Monday`s print of ISM blew past market expectations. Nordea Markets pointed out that an ISM reading of 57.8 has historically corresponded with a YoY SPX return of 26%, compared to a current YoY return of 14%.
 

 

Johnny Bo Jakobsen at Nordea Markets also observed that the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index, which measures whether economic releases are beating or missing expectations, follows a seasonal pattern of Spring weakness, following by a recovery that begins about now.
 

 

Should ESI start to rise, the yield curve has significant room to steepen.
 

 

Sector rotation = More growth

A review of equity sector leadership shows that the stock market is also setting up for the return of more growth and inflation.

First, let’s start with a primer of our analytic tool. Relative Rotation Graphs, or RRG charts, are a way of depicting the changes in leadership in different groups, such as sectors, countries or regions, or market factors. The charts are organized into four quadrants. The typical group rotation pattern occurs in a clockwise fashion. Leading groups (top right) deteriorate to weakening groups (bottom right), which then rotates to lagging groups (bottom left), which changes to improving groups (top left), and finally completes the cycle by improving to leading groups (top right) again.

Here is the RRG chart for US sectors.
 

 

There are a number of observations to make. We can see that Technology leadership has rolled over. Sectors such as Consumer Discretionary, Utilities, and Consumer Staples are also losing relative strength, and therefore should be avoided or tactically underweight in portfolios.

Emerging leadership can be see in the capital-goods heavy Industrial stocks, which I discussed in Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull. The chart below shows that this sector has staged a relative upside breakout through initial resistance, though further overhead relative resistance is ahead. The macro backdrop for capital goods appears to be international in scope, as Bloomberg reported that “Euro Area faces capital bottlenecks as recovery gathers pace”.
 

 

The relative performance of Financial stocks have been correlated with the shape of the yield curve. A steepening yield curve, which is the bond market’s signal of better growth expectations, should be positive for this sector.
 

 

Mining stocks appear to have bottomed out against the market and they are poised to turn up. This as another sign of a nascent reflationary bias in sector leadership.
 

 

Equally intriguing for the inflation trade are the Energy stocks. Energy is in the process of testing a key relative downtrend line.
 

 

The monthly chart of the Energy stock ETF (XLE) is also displaying a constructive pattern of a doji candle in June, which indicates indecision, with a possible turnaround in the first few days of July.
 

 

Gold stocks are currently testing a relative support within the context of a relative downtrend. For a full surge of inflationary expectations to occur, the relative performance of gold stocks need to turn up, which hasn’t happened yet.
 

 

Finally, I would like to add a word about the Healthcare sector. The relative strength turnaround in Biotech and Healthcare is a function of the Obamacare repeal (and possible replacement) that is winding its way through Congress. While these stocks have bottomed and rallied, their future performance is dependent on legislation. Your guess is as good as mine as to the fate of that legislation.
 

 

Setup for a blow-off top

In addition, Ryan Detrick at LPL Research pointed out that July tends to be seasonally bullish.
 

 

As well, the market tends to perform better when returns in the first six months exceed 8%, which it has.
 

 

In short, the stars are lining up for a reflationary rally and blow-off top. Fasten your seat belts!

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Nearing the terminal phase of this equity bull

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bullish (upgrade)

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

Charting the pain trade

Even as the recent SPX stays in a narrow trading range, there was plenty of pain to go around beneath the surface. The drubbing taken by NASDAQ stocks were largely offset by rallies in Financials and Healthcare.

So what are the next pain trades, and what are the implications?

Hedgopia documented how large speculators (read: hedge funds) have moved from a crowded short in the 10-year Treasury Note to a crowded long.
 

 

Similarly, large speculators are also in a crowded long in the T-Bond futures.
 

 

Bond yields began to rise, and the yield curve steepened dramatically.
 

 

Those are the first major pain points for traders. These dramatic reversals have further implications for the equity market.

Here comes the reflation trade

Two weeks ago, I highlighted a scenario for how an equity bear market may begin (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead). It called for one last reflationary blow-off, led first by capital-goods intensive industries, and then spreading to the late cycle inflation hedge and hard asset sectors such as energy and mining. One important sign of this reflation theme taking hold would see bond yields starting to back up and the yield curve steepening.

It appears that the developments that I had outlined are coming to pass. There are signs of a turnaround in both the Citigroup US Economic Surprise Index, which measures whether economic statistics are beating or missing expectations, and bond yields.
 

 

Another bullish development that was largely ignored by the market was the better than expected Manufacturers’ New Orders, which is an indication of a capex revival.
 

 

The market relative chart of the capital-goods heavy Industrial stock sector looks constructive as it nears another relative upside breakout after a pullback test after the initial breakout.
 

 

Is an inflation blow-off around the corner?

Hot on the heels of a capital-goods revival is the rise of inflation and inflationary expectations. I had highlighted analysis from New River Investments manager Conor Sen who postulated an oil spike would signal the end of the economic expansion:

Every boom in the U.S. economy is different, but over the past several decades, each has ended the same way. First you get full employment. Then you get a spike in the price of oil. And then there’s a recession.

When Sen wrote those words, I was skeptical that the current cycle would necessarily be marked by a surge in oil prices. Instead, I generalized the analysis to rising commodity prices would be the signal for rising inflationary expectations, to which the Fed would have to respond with more aggressive tightening.

Indeed, the prices of industrial metals have staged an upside breakout from a downtrend. By contrast, the energy heavy CRB Index is still struggling to test a key technical resistance line.
 

 

The relative market performance of mining stocks in the US and Basic Material companies in Europe are also tracing out constructive bottoming and recovery patterns, indicating the global nature of the upturn.
 

 

By contrast, both American and European Energy sectors remain in relative downtrends.
 

 

Even though the above chart shows that Energy stocks are staging a relative strength rally, there are no definitive signs that their relative strength is anything more than just a blip in relative downtrends – until now.

The energy pain trade

Short energy stocks is another potential pain trade. Sentiment in the energy sector is getting washed out. Should oil and commodity prices turn up, that would be the setup for a second pain trade that could rip the faces of the shorts. Sentiment Trader recently documented how Rydex assets in energy is at all-time lows.
 

 

Here is another way of thinking about this sector, the weight of Energy in SPX hasn’t been this low since 2004.
 

 

Tiho Brkan pointed out that Google searches for “bear market” and “oil” have spiked, an levels are consistent with readings at past market bottoms in oil prices.
 

 

Washed out sentiment aside, it is unclear what the exact catalyst is for an oil price revival, but there are two possible fundamental candidates. Marketwatch recently reported that energy analyst Phil Flynn’s forecast of a shale oil production crash. Low prices have prompted wildcatters to cut back on their exploration budgets. Consequently, the discovery of new fields have plummeted. While rig counts remain steady, their productivity is starting to fall, which led to Flynn`s conclusion of a shale oil production crash.
 

 

As well, the elevation of Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) as the new Crown Prince raises the risk of geopolitical disruption in oil prices. MbS has been the architect of Saudi Arabia’s more aggressive foreign policy, such as its military adventure in Yemen, which has turned into a quagmire, and the isolation of Qatar. These foreign policy initiatives have been aimed at curbing Iranian influence in the Gulf. Therefore the risk of either a Saudi-led diplomatic or military confrontation with Iran in the near future has risen considerably. Such an event has the potential to disrupt oil supply from the region and spike prices.

Here is why the price of crude matters. Johnny Bo Jakobsen documented a long-term relationship between oil prices and inflationary expectations.
 

 

Scott Grannis found a similar relationship between gold prices and 5-year inflation-indexed bond yields.
 

 

If commodity prices were to start rising again, it will lead to rising inflationary expectations. The Fed, which is already intent on rate normalization, will have no choice but to respond with a more hawkish monetary policy. The combination of more rate hikes and balance sheet reduction will, at some point, choke off growth enough to push the economy into recession.

It is said that no one rings a bell at market tops, but a recovery in commodity prices is as close to a signal as investors are likely to get. I would caution, however, that a definitive turnaround in oil and other commodity prices hasn’t occurred yet.

The trade war wildcard

Last week, I wrote that policy was likely to be a bigger driver of market returns than economic data in a data light week (see All eyes on policy makers). That is especially true today, as Axios reported that the US is on the verge of imposing broad tariffs on steel:

One official estimated the sentiment in the room as 22 against and 3 in favor — but since one of the three is named Donald Trump, it was case closed.

No decision has been made, but the President is leaning towards imposing tariffs, despite opposition from nearly all his Cabinet.

As the imposition of tariffs has the potential to set off a trade war, such a development could freak out the markets. Business Insider reported that the estimated effects of a trade war could cut 0.5% to 1.0% from GDP growth next year:

Michael Gapen, a chief US economist at Barclays, in December estimated the economic drag that broader tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, two of Trump’s favorite targets, may have on US GDP growth.

One idea floated by the Trump team previously was a 15% tariff on Chinese imports and a 7% tariff on Mexican imports — modestly above their current levels of 2% to 10%, depending on the good. In this scenario, Gapen estimated that the US would see a 0.5% reduction in annual GDP growth in the year after implementation.

Meanwhile, Buiter said Citi estimates trade and other policy uncertainties could be a 1% drag on US GDP over the next year.

A decision to impose tariffs on steel has a geopolitical dimension as well. Among countries that are likely targets of sanctions are China and South Korea. Such a move would setback American efforts to contain North Korea’s nuclear and missile development ambitions, and would have the effect of raising tensions in North Asia.

Under more “normal” circumstances, late cycle expansion accompanied by inflationary pressures from rising commodity prices would see an inflationary driven equity market blow-off, led at first by Industrials, followed by Energy and Materials. All bets are off if the Trump Administration’s steel tariffs spark a trade war.

Under those conditions, we may see a choppy market top develop characterized by sector rotation. Winners would include Energy and Materials, especially the steel producers. Losers would be concentrated in Consumer Discretionary and Industrials as cost of inputs rise, which would squeeze margins.

In short, market conditions are setting up for a last gasp market blow-off. However, we have to allow for the possibility that the market may have already made its high for this cycle, and the major averages will consolidate in a choppy sideways pattern before the bearish fundamental fully assert themselves. My inner investors remains constructive on equities, but he is inclined to replace his long equity positions with buy-write ETFs such as PBP as a way of controlling his equity risk.

The week ahead: Another pain trade setup

In the short-term, there is another possible pain trade setup. The SPX tested its 50 day moving average on Thursday and recovered Friday. In the course of that test, the VIX Index closed marginally above its upper Bollinger Band (by 0.01), and mean reverted.
 

 

I had outlined a VIX upper Bollinger Band study several weeks ago (see A market top checklist). The market action on Thursday and Friday constituted a buy signal for this model whose past returns are shown below. Consequently, the trading model has flipped from a “sell” to a “buy” signal, and the “arrow” now points upwards.
 

 

The latest readings from Index Indicators show that the market reached a minor oversold reading and recovered. A rally from these levels to test and possibly break out from all-time highs is well within the realm of possibility.
 

 

I took a few days off with my family late last week after the end of the school year and my inner trader did not recognize the signal until after the close on Friday. Barring any surprise announcements on the steel tariff front, he expects to enter into a small long position in the SPX on Monday.

Things you don’t see at market bottoms, 29-Jun-2017

It is said that while bottoms are events, but tops are processes. Translated, markets bottom out when panic sets in, and therefore they can be more easily identifiable. By contrast, market tops form when a series of conditions come together, but not necessarily all at the same time.

I have stated that while I don’t believe that the stock market has made its final cyclical top, we are in the late stages of a bull market (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead). Nevertheless, psychology is getting a little frothy, which represent the pre-condition for a major top.

As a result, this is another post in an occasional series of lists of “things you don’t see at market bottoms”. This week, I focus on the theme of “subprime is the new black”:

  • How cov-lite loans have become the norm
  • The popularity of subprime auto loan ABS
  • A start-up for customers with no money but want to buy things

Subprime is the new black
Just when you thought that subprime lending was dead and buried, it has come back to life. The Argentina 100-year bond deal showed how yield starved the market is.

Indeed, the stretch for yield has prompted issuers to take advantage of the easier credit environment. As the chart below shows, the percentage of covenant light loans has been rising steadily since 2010 and cov-lite loans are now the norm.
 

 

Here is another sign that investors are stretching to get more yield, JP Morgan observed that Santader Consumer USA priced a deep subprime auto loans ABS deal where 84% of the loans are to borrowers with unverified income (via Tracy Alloway).
 

 

In case you were wondering, the AALYA deal on the first line is another Santander issue.

A start-up for customers with no money
If “irrational exuberance” is defined as equity investors throwing caution to the winds, what do you call the excessive consumer risk-taking behavior? The following news item recently came across my desk (via Tech Crunch):

If you’re looking to buy something, but don’t want to pay for it yet, Blispay thinks it has the solution for you. The start-up works with small and mid-sized businesses to help retail customers defer payments for six months…

If someone walks into a participating store and wants to make a purchase of at least $199 without paying anything upfront, they can sign up on the Blispay app in 2–3 minutes and once they submit the form they will find out if their credit is approved within 15–20 seconds. They can then take the item home without any payments or any interest for six months, while also getting 2% cash back. Blispay makes money off customers who don’t end up paying for the item when the six months comes around and then they are subject to 19.99% interest.

But as far as the businesses are concerned, it costs them nothing more than the roughly 3% credit card processing fee that they would be paying Visa anyway. Blispay allows businesses “to leverage technology in a way that makes it efficient and affordable to service a far broader swath of a merchant base,” said Lisiewski.

File this as another item under “things you don’t see at market bottoms”.

Time for the Fed to get “unpredictable”?
Alan Greenspan biographer Sebastian Mallaby recently penned an Op-Ed in the WSJ to address the problem of excessive risk taking by staying unpredictable and ambushing the markets once in a while:

With every passing month, the U.S. economy feels, ominously, more like it did in 1999 and in the mid-2000s. Both were times when a promising mix of full employment, low inflation and buoyant spirits gave way to a financial convulsion that triggered a recession. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve under Janet Yellen is ignoring a relatively painless policy that would reduce the danger of a sequel…

A different debate could help the Fed out of this bind. Even if Ms. Yellen’s current, rather gradual pace is appropriate, the Fed can reduce the odds of a financial bust by tweaking the manner of its tightening.

To do so, the Fed should examine a tenet of the central-banking faith: that transparency is always virtuous. By being less transparent—and reserving the option of deliberately ambushing investors with a shock move—the Fed could discourage them from taking too much risk.

Such an ambush would unsettle markets, to be sure; but that would be the point. The painfully learned lesson from the late 1990s and mid-2000s is that excess financial serenity leads to excess risk-taking, which in turn increases the chances of a blow-up. In the first case, that meant the tech bust of 2000; in the second case, it meant the planet-shaking subprime-mortgage meltdown. Since market convulsions caused the last two recessions, reducing the probability of the next one must be a Fed priority.

In effect, Mallaby was echoing what Mark Carney said at Jackson Hole in 2009 about policy transparency at central banks:

How central banks communicate can influence the degree to which low, stable, and predictable inflation fosters excess credit growth. It is important that markets understand how a central bank formulates policy, but that does not equate to perfect foresight. Differences in judgment and the fundamental uncertainties surrounding the economic outlook should mean occasional differences in view. These should be particularly marked during turning points in the economic cycle. As the review of liquidity cycles suggests, wider “markets” in expected economic outcomes (which would mean greater short-term volatility) could promote long-term financial stability.

The alternative would be to generate price instability to prevent financial instability. That is, the price objective might have to become less stable in order to disrupt the endogenous liquidity creation that comes from relatively stable, predictable rate paths.16 This, rather than a higher inflation rate (if reliably achieved), would appear necessary to disrupt the dynamics described earlier.

Instability can be a source of stability.

All eyes on policy makers

Mid-week market update: As we wait to see if the stock market can break either up or down out of this narrow trading range, this week has been a light week for major market moving economic data, However, there are a number of political and non-economic developments to keep an eye on.
 

 

The Fed gets hawkish

Early in the week, we heard hawkish Fedspeak from a number of officials. San Francisco Fed president John Williams reiterated his “docking the boat” metaphor to emphasize that the effects of monetary policy operates with a lag, and therefore the Fed is unlikely to alter its course of rate normalization:

When you’re docking a boat in Sydney Harbour, the San Francisco Bay, or elsewhere, you don’t run it in fast towards shore and hope you can reverse the engine hard later on. That looks cool in a James Bond movie, but in the real world it relies on everything going perfectly and can easily run afoul. Instead, the cardinal rule of docking is: Never approach a dock any faster than you’re willing to hit it. Similarly, in achieving sustainable growth, it is better to close in on the target carefully and avoid substantial overshooting.

New York Fed president Bill Dudley, who is a member of the FOMC triumvirate of Yellen, Fischer, and Dudley, cited loose financial conditions as a reason for the Fed’s continued tightening path despite tame inflation and inflationary expectations:

As I see it, financial conditions are a key transmission channel of monetary policy because they affect households’ and firms’ saving and investment plans and thus influence economic activity and the economic outlook. If the response of financial conditions to changes in short-term interest rates were rigid and predictable, then there would be no need to pay such close attention to financial conditions. But, as we all know, the linkage is in fact quite loose and variable.

For example, during the mid-2000s, financial conditions failed to tighten even as the Federal Reserve pushed its federal funds rate target up from 1 percent to 5¼ percent. Conversely, at the height of the crisis, financial conditions tightened sharply even as the Federal Reserve aggressively pushed its federal funds rate target down toward zero. As a result, monetary policymakers need to take the evolution of financial conditions into consideration. For example, when financial conditions tighten sharply, this may mean that monetary policy may need to be tightened by less or even loosened. On the other hand, when financial conditions ease—as has been the case recently—this can provide additional impetus for the decision to continue to remove monetary policy accommodation.

 

As the New York Fed operates the desk that trades with the market, Dudley’s views of market conditions undoubtedly has a high degree of influence on the discussions within the FOMC.

Did Draghi say “reflationary forces”?

Across the Atlantic, ECB President Mario Draghi spoke at Sintra and stated “the threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play”. That remark was interpreted as a hawkish signal that the ECB is getting ready to begin normalizing monetary policy sooner than expected.

After the markets convulsed on Draghi’s remarks and the surge in the EURUSD exchange rate, ECB officials walked back Draghi’s comments and announced that they had been misinterpreted (via Bloomberg):

Draghi’s speech at the ECB Forum in Sintra, Portugal, was intended to strike a balance between recognizing the currency bloc’s economic strength and warning that monetary support is still needed, said the officials, who spoke separately and who asked not to be named as internal discussions are confidential. Vice President Vitor Constancio scrambled to set the record straight, saying the remarks were “totally” in line with existing policy and the response by investors was hard to understand.

Notwithstanding the short-term path of the ECB`s path for monetary policy, global central banks are slowly removing accommodation. The big question for investors is how the markets are likely to react in 2018 when it becomes clear that both the Fed and ECB are tightening.

Brussels vs. Google

Another piece of non-economic news hit the tape on Tuesday when the EU hit Google with a €2.4 billion for anti-competitive practices in search (see details of the case from Business Insider). GOOG, GOOGL, and QQQ cratered as a result of the ruling and tested its 50 dma, but it was not enough to push the SPX out of its trading band.
 

 

Waiting for Washington

Currency strategist Marc Chandler also cited a couple of important non-economic market drivers this week coming out of Washington:

The first is the expected Senate vote on its version of national healthcare to replace the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare). This is not the space to discuss the merits or demerits of the plan. The point is that the Republicans have little room to maneuver with a razor-thin majority of 52-48. There are already 4-5 Republican senators are have publicly indicated their lack of satisfaction. A couple may be able to be peeled back with a tweak to the bill, but some opposition appears fundamental and principled. The nonpartisan CBO is expected to publish their evaluation, which includes a forecast of the impact on the deficit.

If the Senate cannot pass a healthcare reform bill, it will raise more doubts about the broader economic legislative agenda. In addition to the agenda, there are important maintenance measures that need to be taken by the end of Q3, namely the debt ceiling needs to be lifted (or abolished) and spending authorization (budget) needs to be granted before the start of the new fiscal year (October 1). Skepticism that tax reform and infrastructure spending measures can be adopted that will boost growth in the way the was previously suggested is a weight on medium and long-term US yields (while the short-end remains anchored by Fed policy). Lower US yields, in turn, are a drag on the dollar.

At the time of this writing, it is unclear whether the Senate’s healthcare bill will get passed as Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delayed a vote on the bill, indicating a lack of support. FiveThirtyEight interpreted the intent of the bill not so much just an Obamacare repeal bill, but as a tax cut bill with an underlying conforming with the conservative policy of less government:

I’d posit a simpler idea: This bill is exactly what McConnell wants because it’s right in line with his long-term goals. As Bloomberg’s Francis Wilkinson points out, the BCRA “will transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from poor and middle-class people, in the form of health care, to rich people in the form of tax cuts.” To be more specific, the bill would cut Medicaid spending by $772 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO, and reduce health care tax credits by about $408 billion. It would also reduce taxes and penalties by more than $700 billion, mostly in the form of “repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage, including repealing a surtax on net investment income and repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers.”

To put it another way, the BCRA is less a health care bill than a tax cut (that will mostly benefit the wealthy), coupled with a trillion-dollar-plus reduction in federal government spending on health care (that mostly benefited the poor and the sick). Those goals — lowering taxes on the wealthy, trimming the welfare state, and reducing the size of government — are at the core of Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of movement conservatism, and they’ve been the primary axis of political conflict between Democrats and Republicans for most of the past several decades.

Here is a chart that simplifies the fiscal effects in graphical form (via Diogenes).
 

 

There are two issues for the markets. First, will the promised Trump tax cuts will ever see the light of day? This bill is the first test. For now, the market remains skeptical as the basket of high tax companies are underperforming the SPX.
 

 

As well, the decline in NASDAQ stocks had been partially offset by strength in Healthcare and Biotech. As hopes for a rapid resolution of BRCA fades, what happens to this sector and what happens to market leadership?
 

 

In addition, Marc Chandler also cited the threat of protectionism as a potential negative for the equity market:

The other important event that will not be on economic calendars is the expected announcement of the results of the investigation begun in April of the threat to US national security by steel imports. It seems there is a foregone conclusion to the investigation. Commerce Secretary Ross, who led the investigation, recognized that the law gave him 270 days for the investigation, but insisted all he needed was 90 days, which brings us to the end of June. The political dynamics warn that the more that the Trump Administration feels frustrated by Congress and the judiciary, the more that it may feel compelled to act forcefully where it has discretion.

The risk is the Trump Administration’s protectionist policies that could lead to a trade war. The environment is turning dark, as the Commerce Department slapped additional duties on Canadian softwood lumber (see CNBC report). The next shoe to drop is steel. These developments stand in stark contrast to Politico’s report of an imminent EU-Japan free trade agreement.

So far, the market remains on edge as a result of this uncertainty. However, I am still waiting for some definitive verdict of a technical break before making a definitive trading decision on possible market direction.

Long live the reflation trade!

Preface: Explaining our market timing models
We maintain several market timing models, each with differing time horizons. The “Ultimate Market Timing Model” is a long-term market timing model based on the research outlined in our post, Building the ultimate market timing model. This model tends to generate only a handful of signals each decade.

The Trend Model is an asset allocation model which applies trend following principles based on the inputs of global stock and commodity price. This model has a shorter time horizon and tends to turn over about 4-6 times a year. In essence, it seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend in the global economy expansion (bullish) or contraction (bearish)?”

My inner trader uses the trading component of the Trend Model to look for changes in the direction of the main Trend Model signal. A bullish Trend Model signal that gets less bullish is a trading “sell” signal. Conversely, a bearish Trend Model signal that gets less bearish is a trading “buy” signal. The history of actual out-of-sample (not backtested) signals of the trading model are shown by the arrows in the chart below. Past trading of the trading model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.
 

 

The latest signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Risk-on
  • Trading model: Bearish

Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends and tweet mid-week observations at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

The global bull keeps on charging

Despite my recent negativity (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead and Things you don’t see at market bottoms, 23-Jun-2017 edition), I am not ready to throw in the towel on this equity bull market.

From a long-term perspective, the reflation trade is still alive, and growth is global in scope. As the 20-year monthly chart below of the Dow Jones Global Index (DJW) shows, the last two tops were preceded by negative RSI divergences. So far, DJW is barely overbought and has not even had the opportunity to exhibit a negative RSI divergence. This suggests that global equities can continue to grind higher, and the ultimate top is, at a minimum, several months away.
 

 

The tactical outlooks suggests that there may be some near-term weakness ahead. Drilling down to the weekly chart, DJW has shown a pattern of flashing double RSI overbought sell signals. In the past, the index has achieved a first RSI peak overbought reading (dark vertical line) which was followed by a second RSI peak (red vertical line). DJW has recently shown the same double overbought peak pattern, and, if history is any guide, the market is likely to stage a minor pullback.
 

 

I interpret these technical conditions as being in favor of the global reflation trade, though some minor pause may be necessary. This scenario is consistent with current macro and fundamental readings that are supportive of a reflationary driven equity advance..

Global reflation still lives

Last week, Business Insider featured a number of charts from market strategists that confirm my reflationary view.

Starting with the US, Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro observed that a simple but rarely used leading indicator is pointing to improving growth.
 

 

Joe LaVorga at Deutsche Bank noted that employee withholding tax receipts are trending upwards, which implies a healthy employment and consumer spending outlook.
 

 

From a bottom-up perspective, the latest update of earnings estimates from FactSet shows that forward EPS continues to rise. Fundamental momentum of rising estimates should act to support higher stock prices in the near future.
 

 

Last week, I wrote that the next stage of the market cycle typically sees leadership from capital-goods intensive stocks (see Risks are rising, but THE TOP is still ahead). The market relative breakout of the Industrial sector that I observed last week proved to be premature. Nevertheless, the technical pattern remains constructive.
 

 

Sean Darby of Jefferies observed that the Philly Fed’s expected capex outlook leads non-residential fixed investment, indicating that capex revival is likely ahead.
 

 

Across the Atlantic, Chris Williamson of IHS Markit commented that Friday’s Eurozone Flash PMI is still signaling better GDP growth.
 

 

Moreover, Williamson also noted that employment in the eurozone is likely to be strong.
 

 

The recent record of better than expected growth has propelled the Euro STOXX 50 to break out of its relative downtrend against the MSCI All-Country World Index.
 

 

Over in Asia, the market signal from the performance of the stock indices of China’s major Asian trade is positive. Beijing’s crackdown on credit and the shadow banking system has shown little or no effect on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite has managed to recover above its 50 and 200 dma, and only the resource heavy Australian market is struggling below its 50 dma.
 

 

The Chinese authorities appear to have engineered the perfect economic re-balancing even as they tightened credit. My two pair trades of long new “consumer” China and short old “finance and infrastructure” China shows that new China is winning.
 

 

In short, the global reflation trade remains on track, with few impediments in sight.

How the Fed could take away the punch bowl

The biggest risk to the global reflation trade is a Fed policy that is more hawkish than market expectations. This chart from Albert Edwards (via Business Insider) tells the story of how the market doesn’t believe that the Fed`s dot plot rate hike projections. As the Fed announced its latest rate increase, 2-year Treasury yields barely budged, indicating market disbelief of further tightening because of tame inflation statistics.
 

 

That’s where the market may be in for a big surprise. Tim Duy agrees. He is turning to the hypothesis that the Fed is working backwards in order to justify its rate normalization policy. It first specifies the interest rate target, and works backwards to arrive at projected inputs afterwards:

What I don’t like is the feeling that the Fed’s unemployment rate forecast is essentially being reverse-engineered. They have a rate forecast that delivers policy normalization in a time frame they think appropriate. And they have a reaction function. If policy makers forecast lower unemployment then they need to either adjust the reaction function or lower their estimate of the natural rate of unemployment more aggressively. They don’t want to do either. So to keep their rate forecast intact, they need to set a matching unemployment rate forecast. And that produces a flat unemployment rate for this year.

While this approach of calculating the answer first and massaging model inputs is inherently objectionable, Duy thinks that Yellen believes the risks of the Fed falling behind the curve is rising quickly:

Yellen must feel there is a substantial risk of undershooting the natural rate of unemployment. It’s implied by the Fed’s growth forecast and Yellen’s view of the labor markets. This explains the Fed’s hawkishness in the face of low inflation. Indeed, despite years of below target inflation, officials continue to attribute the weak numbers to transitory factors. Yellen’s “idiosyncratic factors” has become a defense mechanism in response to fears that if unemployment drifts too low they can stave off inflation only by triggering a recession.

Ultimately, the Fed sees the risks associated with undershooting the natural rate of unemployment as greater than those of low inflation.

What this means is that the Fed will not turn dovish easily. Officials will not take their rate hike plans and go quietly into the night, even in the face of low inflation. Expect their baseline case to remain another rate hike and balance sheet reduction this year, plus another three 25 basis point hikes next year.

If Duy’s interpretation of Fed policy is correct, then the risk of a central bank engineered economic slowdown is substantially higher than expected. At a minimum, the market is going to be in for a big surprise.

Let’s consider how the market might react to this “new reality”. Currently, the 2/10 yield curve stands at about 0.80%. Supposing the Fed were to hike again in September and signals that it will pause in December, but begin to reduce its balance sheet then, which is another form of tightening. 2-year yields adjust upwards by 50bp (25bp for the September hike and 25bp for a delayed effect from the June hike), while 10-year yields compress by 20-30bp. The result is a yield curve that gets very close to inversion. As the chart below shows, equity market tops have either coincided or shortly followed yield curve inversions in the past.
 

 

On top of that, we haven`t even considered the additional risk that the FOMC becomes more hawkish with the addition of Trump appointees to the Board of Governors (see More surprises from the Fed?), New governors are likely to adhere to the Republican audit-the-Fed orthodoxy of rules-based monetary policy.

That day of reckoning is not here yet, and such a scenario is purely speculative. Meanwhile, enjoy the reflation party.

The week ahead

Looking to the week ahead, the short-term technical direction is less clear-cut than it has in the past. Both the bull and bear cases are equally compelling.

The short-term bull case can be summarized by this breadth chart from Index Indicators. The market is starting to rebound after a mild oversold reading, indicating a possible change in direction.
 

 

The correction that I have been calling for seems to have been accomplished in time rather than in price. As the chart below shows, the recent Tech correction appears to have been nothing more than just performance mean reversion and internal rotation.
 

 

On the other hand, there are negative divergences everywhere that haven’t been resolved. I had cited the negative divergences that overhang the market (see A market breadth model that works) and the negative divergence seen in DJW at the beginning of this post. The chart below also shows a minor divergence between credit market risk appetite and the equity market.
 

 

As well, option sentiment flashed an unusual contrarian signal on Thursday, when the CBOE Equity Put/Call Ratio (CPCE) fell to 0.50, which is a historically low reading. Thursday’s low CPCE was followed by an equally low 0.58 on Friday. What is unusual is this was accomplished when the stock market was flat to down. CPCE is normally low when the market is rallying, and a low put/call ratio is reflective of the growing bullishness momentum traders. The only instance in the last two years of CPCE at 0.50 or less on flat returns resolved itself with a minor pullback.
 

 

A longer term study of CPCE below 0.50 revealed a definite momentum effect. Forward equity returns tended to be strong when CPCE was low but past returns were rising, but forward returns were weak when CPCE was low but past returns were weak. However, that effect was short-lived and only last two days.
 

 

These cross-currents in the market has left my inner trader utterly confused. He is inclined to believe that the market is likely to trade sideways in a choppy fashion until either and upside breakout or downside breakdown is accomplished.

My inner investor remains constructive on equities. My inner trader is hanging on to his short position, though he may opportunistically cover his position on weakness and move to the sidelines.

Disclosure: Long TZA