What does the crowded long position in bonds mean for stocks?

I encountered a couple of interesting observations about the bond market on the weekend. First, Tom McClellan pointed out that the latest Commitment of Traders report on bond futures shows that the commercial hedgers, who are thought to be the “smart money” are massively short the bond market.

 

As well, Mark Hulbert observed that bond market timers are showing an off-the-charts level of bullishness on bonds, which is contrarian bearish.

 

Right, the bond market is cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Since the main focus in these pages is on the stock market, the BIG QUESTION for equity investors: “What would a weak bond market mean for the stock market?”

The technical picture

As a reminder for newbies, when bond interest rates rise, bond prices fall. There are two ways that bond rates can rise (and bond prices fall). The most obvious scenario would see interest rates rise uniformly across the board, otherwise known as a parallel upward shift in the yield curve, Such an outcome would likely be equity bearish, as the inverse of the P/E ratio, the E/P, is a function of long rates. If E/P were to rise, P/E would fall (everything else being equal) and stock prices would weaken along with bond prices.

The second scenario involves a steepening of the yield curve, where long bond rates rise more than short rates, or long bond rates rise while short rates fall. In that case, a steepening of the yield curve would likely signal a growth surprise, as the E in the P/E ratio is rising because of higher than anticipated earnings growth – which would be equity bullish.

If we were to explore the first scenario of a parallel upward shift in the yield curve, let`s begin by examining the technical outlook for the long Treasury bond. As the chart below shows, there appears to be no obvious price bearish or yield bullish pattern for the long bond. In fact, the long bond yield appears to be descending in an orderly way, which is bond price bullish.

 

Notwithstanding the low likelihood of an aggressive Fed pushing up interest rates, we can see no help from the charts there.

A steepening yield curve?

To explore the possibility of a steepening yield curve, the chart below shows the spreads in yield between the 10-year Treasury vs. the 2-year (top panel) and the 30-year UST vs. the 2-year (bottom panel). Both yield curves have been steadily falling in steady downtrends, indicating a flattening yield curve, not a steepening curve. Until those spreads break upwards through those trend lines, we cannot conclude that the yield curve is steepening, which would likely be equity bullish.

 

So we are stuck. Even though a trade is setting up for a fall in bond prices, there is no way of telling from the charts whether the outcome is equity bullish or bearish.

A clue from sector rotation?

There is one data point that favors the second equity bullish scenario of better growth ahead from the the Relative Rotations Graphs (RRG) of US sector leadership. As a reminder, RRG leadership rotation generally occur in a clockwise direction, from a leadership position (top right) to weakening (bottom right) to lagging (bottom left) to improving (top left).

As the chart below shows, the interest sensitive Utilities sector had been a leadership sector, but its position has been weakening and rolling over. On the other hand, deep cyclical sectors such as Industrial stocks, which represent late-cycle capital goods manufacturers, and resource extraction stocks in the Energy and Material sectors, are taking over the sector leadership mantles.

 

I would add the caveat that the message from equity market leadership is suggestive of positive growth surprise ahead, I am awaiting confirmation from some definitive trend breaks from the 30-2 year and 10-2 year spreads.

In conclusion, we don`t have a trade, but only a trade setup that bond prices are vulnerable to a pullback. In addition, we have no definitive details of how a drop in bond prices (and therefore a spike in bond yields) would affect the stock market. Nevertheless, I offer you some guideposts of what to watch for when that does happen, so that you can be prepared.

The trend is your friend (breadth, seasonality and sentiment too)

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

 

The 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 any changes during the week at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

 

The trend is your friend

My trading model turned bullish on stocks on February 28, 2016 (see the faabove chart of out-of-sample trading model signals and The market bottom 2-step: 1 forward, 1 back). Since then, the stock market has been rising and I see few reasons for investors to deviate from a bullish position.

The Trend Model analyzes global stock markets and commodity prices to see how risk appetite is evolving. This week, I take my readers for a tour around the world to show how risk appetite is improving. In addition, I find that improving breadth, positive seasonality and skepticism about the rally are also supportive of further market gains.

To start, the chart below shows the US, the European stock indices and commodity prices. The SPX has rallied above its 50 and 200 day moving averages (dma), which indicates an uptrend. European stocks, as measured by the FTSE 100 and Euro STOXX 50 are all strengthened above their 50 dma lines. Commodity prices, as measured by the CRB Index and Industrial Metals, have also rallied above their 50 dma. Even though commodities did weaken a little last week, the 50 dma lines are holding as support.

 

In Asia, we are seeing a similar pattern of market strength in China and the markets of her major Asian trading partners. All of those regional indices have rallied above their 50 dma lines.

 

Signs of global reflation and improving risk appetite are everywhere. We are also seeing the reflationary theme evident in other asset classes. Jeroen Blokland recently pointed out that deflationary fears in the fixed income markets have receded, at least in the US.

 

The trend is your friend – and it`s pointing upwards for stock prices all around the world.

Breadth is positive

In addition, improving breadth indicators are supportive of further gains. The chart below shows the SPX along with a number of breadth metrics, namely the SPX A-D Line, NYSE 52 week new highs, % bullish and % of stocks above the 200 dma. Even as the SPX languishes below its highs, all of the other breadth measures have surged to new highs. These kinds of positive divergences are highly suggestive of further intermediate term market strength,

 

Breadth has also turned sufficiently positive that Ned Davis Research upgraded its tactical view from cautious to to neutral. Their analysis of stocks above the 50 dma shows a breadth thrust, which has historically shown bullish implications.

 

 

Positive seasonality

As we head into April, stock prices could benefit from a positive seasonality tailwind. Jereon Blokland analyzed monthly returns using different time frames. In all cases, April has been a standout in terms of average returns. Here are the monthly returns starting from 1946. April has historically been the second best month for stock returns after December (annotations in red are mine).

 

When Blokland shortened the time frame and starts from 1970, the results are about the same:

Zooming in further with a lookback period starting from 1991, the picture changes slightly. The best monthly return is no longer December, but September. But April stays as the second best month.

 

Marketwatch also highlighted analysis from Jeff Hirsch of the Stock Trader’s Almanac and Ryan Detrick of LPL Financial that came to a similar conclusion on April seasonality. What’s more, Detrick’s found that equity returns were even better when the market rebounded the way it did in March:

And while historical data have no bearing on future performance, Detrick pointed out that since 2002, a month that gains at least 6%—which happened in March—is typically followed by a strong month, with an average return of 3%.

And Detrick detected an even more interesting pattern going back to World War II—if stocks are weak in January and February but rebound in March, then the market tends to rise 8 out of 10 times with average gains of 3.4%.

 

Climbing a Wall of Worry

In addition, I am also seeing a healthy dose skepticism about the latest rally, which is contrarian bullish. The chart below shows the AAII bear-bull spread (in black) and Rydex money market + bear fund cash flows as a % of total cash flows (in green), which is a better sentiment metric as it measures how traders are actually deploying their money. Both are in neutral territory and readings are not as bullish when the market last topped out in October/November. These neutral readings in the face of the recent strong market has to be interpreted as being constructive for further gains in stock prices.

 

We can see a similar pattern of skepticism in the NAAIM survey of RIA sentiment. RIAs have become more bullish, but readings are below the levels of October/November when the market last topped out.

 

The latest report from Barron’s of insider trading tells a similar story, but from the flip side of the coin. This group of  “smart” investors have pulled back from their heavy buying. Their activity level is in the neutral zone and there are no warning signs of excessive insider selling, which would be a bearish warning.

 

 

Earnings Season skepticism

As we approach Earnings Season, there seems to be a lot of caution, which is lowering the bar on market expectations. The weekend Marketwatch headline captures those fears well.

 

Factset reported that the level of negative guidance has been extraordinarily high:

In addition, a higher number and percentage of SP 500 companies have lowered the bar for earnings for Q1 2016 relative to recent averages. Of the 121 companies that have issued EPS guidance for the first quarter, 94 have issued negative EPS guidance and 27 have issued positive EPS guidance. If 94 is the final number for the quarter, it will mark the second highest number of SP 500 companies issuing negative EPS guidance for a quarter since FactSet began tracking the data in 2006. The percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance is 78% (94 out of 121), which is above the 5-year average of 73%.

 

With such high levels of negative guidance, the Q1 earnings outlook must be really, really bad, right? Not so fast! The evolution of street consensus forward 12-month EPS estimates, which comes from the same Factset report, tells a different story. Forward EPS has been rising, which is supportive of the global reflation trend that I have been writing about in the last few weeks (annotations in red are mine).

 

When the stock market enjoys the combined tailwinds of a bullish global reflationary trend, positive breadth, a dose of healthy skepticism and an easy Fed, how worried should investors be?

The week ahead: A possible pause?

For traders, it may be a different story. As we peer into the week ahead, the market remains overbought, though readings from IndexIndicators show that they have backed off a little from extreme levels.

 

A glance at the SPX shows that the index is approaching a key resistance zone from below. RSI-5 remains overbought, but these may represent “good” overbought conditions that are typical of breadth thrusts identified by Ned Davis Research (see above). Both RSI-14 and the VIX Index are holding to their trend lines, which my inner trader is nervously watching.

 

One key concern for short-term traders is the the faltering performance of cyclical leadership. The chart below shows that, despite continued USD weakness, which should help the cyclical rebound, the relative performance of cyclical groups are starting to weaken. Industrial stocks staged a relative breakout and have now pulled back to test the relative breakout level. Semiconductor stocks are struggling with relative resistance. Energy experienced a minor violation of a relative downtrend on Friday, but the break is not definitive. Should these sectors weaken further in the near future, it may signal a period of pullback and consolidation, though weakness will most likely be shallow as the intermediate term outlook remains bullish. Under such a scenario, drawdown sensitive traders may want to either partially or fully de-risk their positions, or perhaps even go tactically short the market.

 

My inner investor remains long stocks, with an overweight position in the resource extraction sectors. My inner trader is nervously long as he watches the short-term internals, which may be showing signs of technical deterioration.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Updates on the Brexit, energy and SPX trades

Mid-week market update: Rather than the usual mid-week market technical comment, I thought that I would present updates on a number of trades that I had suggested in the past:

In addition, Tadas Viskanta at Abnormal Returns made a compilation of blogger wisdom about smart beta, which includes my contribution (see The dirty little secret behind smart beta investing). There’s lots of good stuff there. The consensus seems to be that while smart beta funds and ETFs have their uses, they are no magic bullets and investors have to understand exactly what they’re getting into when they buy.

 

Brexit: A possible trade setup

I had suggested that traders may want to watch the EWU (UK ETF) vs. FEZ (Euro STOXX 50 ETF) as a way of playing the Brexit referendum. Currently, this pair is roughly in the middle of the trading range (also note that since these ETFs trade in USD, this pair already factors in any currency effects).

 

While I continue to believe that the UK public would ultimately vote to stay in the EU, I had also indicated that the Leave side would likely strengthen enough, to the extent that it would scare enough voters on the sidelines to rally to Stay at the last minute. As I write these words, the latest news is indicative of the Leave side starting to gain the upper hand, with news of:

Traders may wish to take a speculative position of shorting EWU against buying FEZ in anticipation of further short-term gains by the Leave side, until the pain gets enough that the Project Panic Stay campaign can scare convince the British electorate to vote to remain in the EU.

A generational low in oil and energy?

OK, my past headline that oil and energy stocks was likely seeing a generational low was probably an exaggeration, but the publication timing of that call was fortunate and the trade has worked out quite well so far. The lower panel shows that the market relative performance of energy stocks is in the process of testing an uptrend, which remains intact.

 

Since the recovery in crude oil and energy stocks, the adage that the cure for low oil prices is low prices is taking effect and we are starting to see a supply response. Bloomberg reports that Norwegian consultancy Rystad is projecting the production-demand imbalance tilting towards a future supply shortage as old fields get depleted but they won’t be replaced by new production:

About 3 million barrels a day will come from new projects this year, compared with 3.3 million lost from established fields, according to Oslo-based Rystad Energy AS. By 2017, the decline will outstrip new output by 1.2 million barrels as investment cuts made during the oil rout start to take effect. That trend is expected to worsen.

“There will be some effect in 2018 and a very strong effect in 2020,” said Per Magnus Nysveen, Rystad’s head of analysis, adding that the market will re-balance this year. “Global demand and supply will balance very quickly because we’re seeing extended decline from producing fields.”

 

In the short-term, however, the latest EIA report shows that inventories rose to another record level, which continues to spook traders. Watch for more analysis like the Rystad report to become more mainstream – and that should serve to push oil prices and energy stocks higher later this year.

Stocks climbing a Wall of Worry

Even as the stock market breaks out to 2016 highs, buying pressure is still positive and relentless. Brett Steenbarger observed:

Once again, we saw buying pressure completely dominate selling pressure via the uptick/downtick measures. This lifted the cumulative uptick/downtick measure to new highs (see below). As noted yesterday, volume has not been stellar (though it picked up yesterday), but what volume has been there has been strongly skewed to the buyers and that has been associated historically with favorable near-term returns (upside momentum).

In addition, sentiment models indicate a high level of skepticism, which suggests that the market is likely to continue to climb the proverbial Wall of Worry. As stocks recovered dramatically from its February lows, it is curious that the latest Tickersense Blogger Sentiment Poll shows that the number of bears exceeding bulls (I was one of the few bulls in the last poll).

 

Similarly, the latest AAII poll shows a remarkable low level of bulls. As the chart below shows, AAII bulls are nowhere near crowded long levels despite the recent rally and even fall short of the readings seen at the market highs seen last November.

 

The most astounding reading came from Investors Intelligence, which showed a bullish retreat bulls and a rise in bearish sentiment after the minor stock market pullback last week:

 

At a minimum, such high levels of skepticism sets up an environment of low expectations, where good news will have maximal bullish impact and bad news minimal bearish impact. Barring some totally unexpected surprise, it suggests that we have not seen the highs for this rally and any weakness is likely to be mild. My base case scenario calls for a grind higher to test the old all-time highs. The crowd needs to get more bullish and the bears need some form of capitulation.

Disclosure: Long SPXL, SU

The GAAP gap as Rorscbach test

I’ve been meaning to write on this topic but I hadn’t gotten around to it. For several weeks, I have seen warnings about deteriorating earnings quality. The gap between corporate earnings as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and operating earnings (earnings without the special bad stuff) has been widening to levels not seen since the last market crash.

Here is a chart from Zero Hedge which showed that the gap between GAAP and Non-GAAP earnings is at its worst since 2008.

 

The level of write-offs are absolutely horrendous.

 

On the other hand, this chart from Goldman Sachs is suggestive that these earnings “gaps” occur at the height of bear markets. If we are already through the worst of these writeoffs, could such a development be actually equity bullish?

 

Urban Carmel also pointed out that outside of recessions, the “GAAP gap” actually isn’t that bad on a historical basis.

 

Interpreting the GAAP earnings quality gap is like the Rorschach inkblot test. Bullish or bearish? What`s the real story?

The difference between GAAP and Non-GAAP earnings

To try and answer that question, let’s start with the distinguishing difference between GAAP and operating, or Non-GAAP, earnings. Ed Yardeni explains:

GAAP rules are highly conservative. US public companies are required to report on EPS in their financial statements based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In short, GAAP earnings are fully loaded with all income statement line items pertinent to the reporting periods. Even when a judgment call exists, GAAP accountants will lean towards the outcome that reveals the least amount of profit. That’s because accountants are trained to follow the principle of conservatism in accordance with GAAP.

Public companies report on several variations of EPS. Those include basic and diluted EPS based on total net income, or loss, with further subdivision by continuing and discontinued operations.

There are some very legitimate reasons for excluding certain items when evaluating an earnings report. Supposing a company experienced a one-time event, such as the gains or losses from selling an operation, or legal settlements such as BP`s $20.7 billion payment over its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill . A comparison of GAAP earnings between periods is not very meaningful because of the unusual or extraordinary nature of the one-time gain or loss. That’s why analysts focus on (Non-GAAP) operating earnings for comparability purposes. On the flip side, this “operating earnings” loophole is subject to abuse by corporate management:

“Unusual” exclusions are usually not GAAP. Public companies typically want to demonstrate the best view of their results to investors, and so may wish to exclude (or include) items considered “unusual” in nature from their EPS calculations. Any such related financial measures would be considered non-GAAP. It’s no surprise that non-GAAP measures tend to be more favorable than GAAP as it tends to be more conservative. In a 2014 note, SP’s Senior Index Analyst, Howard Silverblatt, quipped: “[D]uring difficult times, the term ‘unusual’ appears to be used more liberally [by companies].”

Note that to avoid misleading investors, the SEC requires that any non-GAAP financial measures are presented and also reconciled against the most directly comparable GAAP measure.

A narrow “GAAP gap”

In the current instance, much of the “GAAP gap” is attributable to narrowly based writeoffs in a few sectors. Zero Hedge documented the writeoffs by sector in the chart below (annotations in red are mine). Most of the writeoffs were concentrated in energy and materials. There was a significant discrepancy in telecom, which can be explained by a one-time tax benefit at a single company, Level 3 Communications (LVLT).

 

As commodity prices have tanked badly in the 2015, it is no surprise that resource extraction companies have chosen to write down underperforming and uneconomic mines and oilfields. Indeed, the WSJ reported that the losses made by mining companies (which includes oil drillers) wiped out all of their cumulative profits since 2007.

 

The narrowness of the writeoffs also brings up more color to a concern that I saw some analysts make on the weekend. The latest Q4 GDP report showed that corporate profits are starting to roll over (red line below), which could represent an early warning of impending economic slowdown. However, proprietors` income (blue line below), which is a more timely and closely correlated data series, is still showing robust growth.

 

I interpret the narrowness of the earnings writeoffs as the weakness in corporate profits is not broadly based and therefore near-term recession risk remains low. In fact, the current episode is somewhat reminiscent of the oil price plunge of 1986, when corporate profits fell, but proprietors’ income stayed healthy and the economy continued to grow.

 

Let’s go back to the Rorschbach inkblot test. How worried should you be about deteriorating earnings quality?

Watching the USD for stock market direction

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

The 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 any changes during the week at @humblestudent. Subscribers will also receive email notices of any changes in my trading portfolio.

 

How the USD tells us about the stock market

I have been asked in the past to describe my brand of market analysis, which can be characterized in a number of ways. Technicians would call my approach inter-market analysis. Fundamentally driven investors may regard me as a global macro or cross-asset analyst. That`s because all markets are inter-connected and to simply focus at any single stock, sector or market in isolation misses the big picture. Analyzing different components of the big picture also allows me to write about topics as diverse as the US equity market, the term structure of the VIX Index (see Sell Rosh Hashanah?), Europe (see The costs of Spain’s astounding recovery: Bug or feature?) and China (see Big Trouble with 5-year China).

To illustrate my point, I would like to show why I believe that the US Dollar holds the key to the medium term outlook (6-12 months) for US equities. As the chart below shows, the Trade Weighted Dollar has seen a clear breach of an uptrend line, which has bullish implications for equity bulls.

 

How the USD affects everything

Here is why the trend breach is important. USD direction affects a lot of economic and market conditions. For one thing, Dollar weakness raises inflationary expectations. As the currency weakens, the prices of imports rise, which is inflationary. The chart below shows how the Dollar is inversely correlated with 5 year x 5 year forward measures of inflationary expectations (note the inverted scale on inflationary expectations in the chart).

Another proxy for inflation and inflationary expectations are commodity prices. The Trade Weighted Dollar (dark blue line) has displayed a broad inverse correlation to gold and copper prices in the last few decades.

Currency strength has also been shown to be inversely correlated to industrial production. As the USD rises, it makes American manufacturing less competitive and therefore industrial production comes under pressure. Here is a chart of the USD and ISM-Manufacturing, which is a forward looking measure of industrial production (note inverted scale for ISM).

 

A USD tailwind for earnings growth

The USD was on a tear in 2015. More recently, its strength has moderated. We heard repeatedly from companies last year about how the strong Dollar has depressed earnings. It was none other than Zero Hedge that trumpeted the negative effects of USD strength last October (I guess we won`t be hearing from them about the bullish effects of currency weakness).

John Butters of Factset also quantified the effects of USD strength with the following chart (annotations in red are mine). For Q4 2015, he found roughly a 10-11% spread in earnings and revenue growth between domestic companies and exporters.

Now that the greenback has started to fall, we are seeing the initial Street reaction to currency weakness. John Butters` latest update of the earnings expectations shows that the consensus forward 12-month EPS is rising again. That’s because a double tailwind is helping earnings growth. The first comes from the positive translation effects of a weaker USD on the earnings of multi-nationals. As well, the inverse correlation between the USD and commodity prices is also likely to spur cautious optimism in the highly depressed energy and mining sectors.

 

Fed policy and the USD

In discussions about the USD, the question of US monetary policy always comes up. What about the Fed? Won`t rising US rates push the Dollar up? After all, 10-year Treasuries are yielding 1.9% while 10-year Bunds are only at 0.2%.

The flip side of the interest rate differential coin is the inflation differential. Consider the following thought experiment: Would you rather lend money to the US Treasury for 10 years at 1.9%, or some other sovereign country in its own currency at 15%, but its inflation rate is 12%?

Currency traders recognize that US inflation is rising, while the rest of the world is still struggling with deflation. The chart below shows the CPI differential between the US and the European Union. US inflation is ticking up, while European inflation is non-existent. Similarly, the latest report shows Japanese inflation was flat in February.

While a rising interest rate differential is supportive of USD strength, a rising inflation rate differential weakens the Dollar. Notwithstanding the weak USD effects on inflationary expectations and commodity prices, which I showed in previous charts, we are starting to see signs of cost-push inflation. Indeed, Torsten Slok at Deutsche Bank pointed out that the US labor market recovery is broadening out (via Business Insider). Can wage inflation be that far behind?

The latest update from the Atlanta Fed’s Hourly Wage Tracker shows that wage inflation is rising. The latest reading of 3.2% is well above the Fed’s stated 2% inflation target.

As a result, the USD may continue to weaken, despite the Fed`s initiation of a tightening cycle. Analysis from Ned Davis Research shows that the stock market tends to perform well when the Fed is in a slow or non (e.g., once and done) tightening cycle.

Eagle-eyed readers will discern from the above chart that we are entering the fourth month of a slow tightening cycle, when equities have historically corrected. I read that pattern with a healthy dose of skepticism for a couple of reasons. First, the sample size is small (N=5). In addition, the current stock market price experience doesn’t really conform to past history. Equities recently corrected and they have only begun to recover because of a recession scare. Arguably, that was the correction seen in the historical charts – it was just early.

History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes.

A USD counter-trend rally?

Having established a bearish medium term (6-12 month) outlook for the USD and therefore a bullish outlook for US equities, the logical conclusion from this analysis is to buy sectors and industries that benefit the most from USD weakness. That’s why I have advocated overweight positions in late-cycle groups such as capital goods and natural resource extraction, which benefit from rising inflationary expectations (see RIP Correction. Inflationary resurrection next?).

Peering into next week, we have to allow for the possibility of a retracement rally of recent USD weakness. Under such a scenario, equity prices could see further pullbacks.

Here is what I am watching. The top panel of the chart below shows the USD Index, which has already staged a counter-trend rally within a descending channel. The relative performance of resource extraction sectors like energy and mining shows that their relative uptrends to be intact. Until any of these channels break, either for the USD or the relative performance of energy and mining, I am inclined to give the equity bull case the benefit of the doubt. I interpret the market action last week to be equity consolidation in an uptrend unless proven otherwise (see A shallow pullback?).

Chartists should also note that the current advance is seeing broad participation from breadth indicators, The chart below shows that while the SPX has not exceeded its November and December highs, the SPX A-D Line, the % bullish indicator and % of stocks above the 200 dma have all made higher highs. This represents three separate and independent instances of positive breadth divergences.

Further, Todd Salamone at Schaeffer’s Research also found that when the survey of AAII bulls dip from below 30% (bearish sentiment) and rebounds, the results have tended to be equity bullish for the next 2-4 weeks. This study sample size is small, so take the conclusions with a grain of salt.

Along the same lines as Salamone, analysis from Ryan Detrick is also supportive of the medium term bull case. Detrick found that powerful momentum thrusts like we have experienced, where the market goes from an extreme oversold to overbought readings in two months, tend to be resolved bullishly (with the caveat that the sample size is also very small):

[I]t is rare to see stocks move from extremely oversold to overbought in two months like we just did. Going back to the percentage of stocks above their 50-day moving average, the number moved from below 10% to more than 90% in two months. Going back to 1990, that has only happened three other times, and the S+P 500 results after this occurs are rather strong. In other words, moving to extremely overbought could be a sign of impending strength, not weakness.

 

I would point out that while AAII bulls have moved off oversold extremes, readings are still below average and nowhere near crowded long levels (via Bespoke):

In fact, Joe Fahmy noted that, at an anecdotal level, he isn’t find a lot of bulls. These sentiment readings are raises the possibility for a FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) rally as we approach quarter-end next week.

1) I spoke to many potential investors around mid to late February, telling them I was getting back in the market. 100% of them were still scared. Now when I talk to them, they say “no way am I going to jump in at these levels!” Hey, sometimes you just can’t help people.

2) Let’s move on to the institutional people I talk to who manage $2B or more in assets. Many are still underinvested, and some have the biggest net-short positions they’ve ever had.

3) When looking at the major Wall Street strategists, the average 2016 year-end SP 500 target is 2150. That’s only +5.5% away. So, when I say “No One Is Bullish,” I mean almost no one is calling for a +10-20% gain from here.

The one wild-card for the markets comes in the form of the upcoming Employment Report, which could prove to be a source of near-term market volatility. Should jobs gains come in higher than expectations, it would raise the odds of rate hikes, which would put upward pressure on the USD and therefore downward pressure on stock prices.

My inner investor remains long the market, with an overweight position in resource extraction stocks. My inner trader bought into the market last week and he is looking to add to his long positions on weakness  (see A shallow pullback?).

Disclosure: Long SPXL

A shallow pullback?

Mid-week technical update: I wrote on the weekend that I expect that the stock market would continue to rise on an intermediate term basis, but some short-term weakness was likely (see A repeat of the failed Oct/Nov rally of 2015?). What I did not expect was to see a short-term buy signal after the brief weakness that we saw today (Wednesday).

In retrospect, it was easy to see that a pullback was coming. This hourly chart of the SPX shows negative divergences on RSI-5 and RSI-14, which set up the conditions for the fall in prices.

 

Intermediate-term bullish

On the other hand, the longer term outlook remained bullish as sentiment indicators were supportive of a move higher. Chris Prybal of Schaeffer`s Research highlighted analysis by his colleague Rocky White that short interest, which is reported monthly, continues to rise. This is a contrarian bullish reading on an intermediate term basis.

In addition, Brett Steenbarger made a couple of bullish observations. First, he believes that the current rally is not a “bounce in a bear market”:

My cycle measure continues in elevated territory, again unlike much of what we saw in 2015, where strength led to weakness. That continued elevation on a shorter-term cycle measure suggests that a longer-term cycle is at play and that this has been more than a bounce in a bear market.

In addition, he noted that shares outstanding for SPY was falling even as the market rose, which indicates that the traders are skeptical of the rally and therefore the market is climbing a wall of worry:

I also notice that shares outstanding for the SPY ETF have once again dipped, now dropping below their levels from 5, 10, and 20 days ago. Very interestingly, the number of shares outstanding for SPY has dropped over the course of the rally from mid-February. Share redemption has generally been associated with superior returns over a multi-week horizon.

 

An uncertain buy signal

As the market sold off today, what alerted me to a possible bullish signal was the continued negative sentiment prevalent in the market. First of all, TRIN spiked over 2, which can be an indication of panicked selling, which is unusual given the shallowness of the pullback.

Elevated levels of TRIN can be an imperfect buy indicator. The chart below shows past instances when TRIN was above 2.

In addition, the ISE equity-only call/put ratio, which measures customer-only opening option transactions, stayed low all day near the 100% level, which is contrarian bullish for a day when prices are weak.

My inner trader isn’t totally convinced that this represents THE BOTTOM on a short-term basis, but he stepped off the sidelines at the market close to buy a small initial long SPX position.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Big Trouble with 5-year China?

China’s latest five-year plan seems to be a big hit. What’s more, the most recent growth slowdown is abating, the stock market is recovering, but my indicators are suggesting that, despite all of the glowing rhetoric, the economy is taking a step back in its path towards re-balancing growth towards the household sector.

Five-year plan accolades

There was no shortage of accolades for the latest five-year plan. China Daily’s headlines trumpeted Global CEOs reiterate their faith in Chinese economy:

Global CEOs attending the China Development Forum currently underway in Beijing said they have a better sense of policy direction, and are upbeat about the country’s outlook.

“I’m a big fan of what’s going on in China. If you had faith in China’s potential 12 months ago, then that it has hit some bumps on the road, which I believe are all short-term, should not impact your view on the long-term potential of the economy,” said Dennis Nally, chairman of professional services group PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on the sideline of the forum.

The 13th Five-year Plan shows China’s commitment to opening-up, reform and focus on creating comparative advantages. “It’s one that will continue to provide clarity,” he said.

Notwithstanding the propaganda from state controlled media, Gavyn Davies also had cautious praise for the latest five-year plan. First, he laid out the benchmarks by which he measured Beijing`s latest macro strategic initiative:

Macro policy faces a very difficult challenge. It needs to accelerate the rebalancing of the economy without proceeding so rapidly that a hard landing becomes likely. Ideally, such a strategy would have the following ingredients:

  • fairly rapid closure of moribund capacity in the manufacturing sector to reduce deflationary pressures;
  • easier monetary policy to assist domestic demand and cushion the property sector;
  • easier fiscal policy, directed mainly towards boosting consumption rather than investment;
  • a one-off adjustment (of about 10-15 per cent) in the exchange rate to restore confidence in the basket “peg”, thus ending destabilising capital outflows which undermine the necessary easing in domestic monetary conditions;
  • a comprehensive programme to recapitalise the banking sector as loan write offs are accelerated, mainly in the area of non performing loans to the state owned enterprises;
  • further reforms to broaden price signals in the financial and services sectors, and the labour market.

He concluded that the latest five-year plan warranted a passing grade:

The good news is that the collection of policy announcements made at the NPC contains many of the elements of this package. For several months, the Premier has emphasised that a key priority for 2016 would be the closure of excess capacity in “zombie” state owned enterprises (SOEs), mainly in basic manufacturing.

In the past, the government has not been willing to bite this bullet. The declines in the output of basic industrial sectors in recent months suggest that they are more serious this time but the speed of this adjustment is limited by two factors.

The first is the over-riding need to protect the level of employment in the economy, which is already proving very difficult in some regions. The second is the need to recapitalise the banking sector as bad loans to the SOEs are increasingly recognised.

A controlled slowdown

Growth seems to be slowing at a highly controlled pace. Davies observed that the Fulcrum nowcast models of Chinese GDP growth show a pattern of decelerating growth, but with a series of mini-cycles of stimulus-slowdown around the growth path. Such readings suggests that the authorities are well in control of the Chinese economy.

 

Callum Thomas confirmed that his latest readings show that another round of stimulus is underway to stabilize growth, which makes the prospect of a hard landing unlikely in the immediate future.

Thomas also pointed that the real estate market, which is a key barometer of the short-term stresses in the economy, is recovering nicely, led by Tier 1 cities.

The equity markets have responded accordingly to the good news. Not only has the Shanghai market rallied above its 50 day moving average (dma), the indices of the major Asian trading partners have also regained their 50 dma, with the South Korean and Taiwanese markets above their 200 dma (not shown in chart).

 

So far, so good. What could possibly go wrong?

An unbalanced recovery

Mr. Market begs to differ. The message from the market is one of concern about an unbalanced recovery. Though the results are preliminary, my pair trades of long (consumer) China and short (financial) China are rolling over, indicating that Mr. Market thinks that the outlook for financial China is better than consumer China.

The first pair (shown in black) is a long position in PGJ, which has a 70% weight in technology and consumer cyclical stocks, vs. a short position in FXI (47% finance). The second pair (green) is a long position in CHIQ (China consumer ETF) vs. a short position in CHIX (China finance ETF). As the chart of both pairs trades show, “New China” had been outperforming “Old China” until recently, when relative performance rolled over.

If the Chinese economy were truly rebalancing its source of growth from financial leverage driven spending to household spending, then the “New China” stocks should be beating the finance stocks. The latest “Old China” revival is a cause for concern and something to keep an eye on.

This will not end well

If this was Zero Hedge, I would be warning of a pending disaster. More realistically, what we have is a “this will not end well” story, with no immediate trigger for a downturn. Nevertheless, the last thing China needs is more financial leverage driven unbalanced growth.

Recently, Nobel laureate Robert Engle expressed concerns about the degree of financial leverage in China. Engle had developed a measure call SRISK as a way of measuring systemic financial risk, which he believed to be superior to VaR, which is a metric with a very short time horizon:

Where SRISK has been steadily increasing since the global financial crisis turns out to be in China and Japan. “China had no SRISK in 2008 and it’s increased pretty much linearly since then,” Engle said. “The country with the largest SRISK in the world right now is China and Japan is the second. So these two giant Asian economies both have banking sectors that look like they are undercapitalized by our measures.”

The first question one faces when studying SRISK in China is whether this type of model works there. Engle thinks it does. In the Western economies, banks that are deemed too big to fail have to be bailed out by the government in a crisis since they would be unable to raise capital in the stock market. “China is very much like the Western countries [in this regard] as there is no possibility that a Chinese state-owned bank is going to fail,” Engle said.

When Engle started tracking SRISK a few years ago, China ranked fifth on the list. It moved up into the first spot two or three years ago. The stock market euphoria since then brought temporary relief, but SRISK has again increased since the market’s collapse. “Right now, it’s just about back on the trend line for what it was before the stock market took off,” Engle said.

So why is SRISK so high in China? Engle pointed to the banks’ lending to state-owned enterprises and municipal governments. As many of these loans are in fact non-performing, they drag down bank stocks’ valuation.

Asked about the future, Engle remained cautious. “I don’t see smooth sailing for the Chinese economy. I don’t think there is so much risk in the banking system, although that’s not necessarily true of the shadow banking system. There is a chance [some wealth management products offering much higher returns] will fail over the not-too-distant future. We are [also] going to see some corporate defaults.” His advice for investors? “Treat credit risk as an important part of your investment [decision-making process].”

Even with unbalanced growth, there is no immediate threat to global financial stability. However, it does suggest that piling on financial leverage will only exacerbate the downside volatility in the next global downturn.

Stay tuned and keep your flak jacket nearby.

A repeat of the failed Oct/Nov rally of 2015?

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

The signals of each model are as follows:

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

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

The bulls are back in town

In the last few weeks, I had been writing about a transition to a late-cycle market. The latest results from the BoAML Fund Manager Survey show that 59% of institutional managers believed that we are in the late-cycle phase of the expansion cycle. The 59% figure is the highest reading since August 2008.

A late-cycle expansion is characterized by tightening capacity, falling unemployment, rising wage and other inflationary pressures, which are ultimately followed by tight monetary policy.

The current macro environment is indeed seeing signs of tighter employment and modest inflationary pressures. A couple of months ago, the markets had been wrongly focused on the risks of impending recession. We are now seeing a reversal and a FOMO (fear of missing out) reflationary rally in stock and commodity prices.

Indeed, sector leadership is displaying the classical signs of a late cycle rotation. A review of Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG), which depict the evolution of market group rotation where group leadership rotates in a clockwise fashion, shows that at cyclical rotation continues at a health pace at a global level. The chart below shows RRG relative to MSCI All-Country World Index. Resource sensitive countries and regions such as Australia (bulk commodities), Canada (commodities), Latin America (commodities), Russia (oil) and Taiwan (semiconductors) are either market leaders or becoming market leaders. By contrast, the developed market regions such as the US, UK and Eurozone are weak by comparison.

 

US sector leadership is also telling a similar story. The chart below shows that the USD (top panel) is weakening, which fuels inflationary pressures. Moreover, cyclically sensitive groups such as industrial stocks, representing capital goods manufacturers, semiconductors and resource extraction industries have all bottomed and now turning up against the market.

Business Insider reports that John Butters of Factset believes that a cyclical upturn is just around the corner. In other words, earnings growth have gotten so bad that the outlook is good:

Indeed, his latest update shows that forward 12-month EPS bottoming and starting to turn up again.

 

Watching for signs of a market top

Even though the term “late cycle” connotes the late stages of a bull market, the historical evidence suggests that stock prices may have further upside before an ultimate top is reached. I present a couple of case studies of how past market tops have formed during similar late cycle expansionary episodes, with the usual caveat that history doesn’t repeat itself, but rhymes.

The market top of 1980-81 was a classic case of late cycle, inflationary blow-off market top. The chart below shows the price of gold (blue line) as a proxy for inflationary expectations and the Russell 1000 (red line) as a proxy for stock prices. Gold peaked out in January 1980, partly as a reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979. Gold did not fall immediately, but took about nine months to form a double top. At the same time, stock prices did not peak out until soon after the second gold top. As a reminder, this price action occurred in the era of the extremely tight monetary policy of the Volcker Fed.

We can see a similar pattern in the market top of 1990. Gold prices showed the double top pattern that it did in 1980. While the 1980 experience saw stock prices rise significantly during the gold double top period, stock prices were flat to slightly up in the 1990 gold double top episode.

I have several takeaways from this analysis. First, during this topping process, equities did not decline significantly until the second gold top. As we have not even seen the first gold top yet, history tells us that the risk of a major bear market starting in the immediate future is relatively low.

The historical pattern also suggests that these kinds of late cycle episodes take roughly a year to play themselves out. As we are still very early in the pattern, this is not time to panic (yet). However, it is a warning for investors to start watching for signs of market deterioration in the forms of macro, fundamental or technical weakness. So far, there is little in evidence of pending weakness.

I would add that the market tops of 2000 and 2007 did not display similar kinds of cyclical behavior and therefore this analytical framework is not applicable to those market tops. Moreover, I am also not implying that a war is just around the corner as it was in 1980 (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) and 1990 (Iraqi invasion of Kuwait). However, Alex Kazan of Eurasia Group did recently pointed out that measures of global political risk is rising, most notably in the emerging market economies (via Business Insider).

 

The Fed throws a party

Meanwhile, the Fed threw a party last week. The one big surprise last week was the dovish stance taken by the FOMC. The guiding principles of the Phillips Curve, which postulates a short-term inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, seemingly went out the window. Instead, the Yellen Fed focused on the downside risk posed by the weakness in global economy. The Fed seemed to have changed its mandate from central banker to the United States to central banker to the world.

The change in tone at the Fed prompted a cacophony of criticism about the dangers of inflation (see Macro Man for an example of the shrillness of the pushback). This Ambrose Evans-Prichard article entitled “The Yellen Fed risks Faustian pact with inflation” is a more reasoned exposition of the Fed’s policy risk:

It is clear that the US Federal Reserve is now trapped. The FOMC dares not tighten despite core inflation reaching 2.3pc because it is so worried about tantrums in financial markets and about that other Sword of Damocles – some $11 trillion of offshore debt denominated in dollars, up from $2 trillion in 2000.

The Fed has been forced by circumstances to act as the world’s central bank, nursing a fragile and treacherous financial system struggling with unprecedented leverage.

Average debt ratios are 36 percentage points of GDP higher than they were at the top of the pre-Lehman bubble in 2008, and this time emerging markets have been drawn into the quagmire as well by the spill-over effects of quantitative easing. Like it or not, the Fed is stuck with the task of cleaning up a global mess that is arguably of its own making.

Evans-Pritchard went on to warn about the risk of getting behind the curve as inflation ticks up:

[Yellen] admitted that the US economy is “close to our maximum employment objective”, meaning that it is near the inflexion point of NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), where unemployment is so low that wage pressures start to gather steam. She admitted too that headline inflation will pick up briskly as the effects of the oil price crash fade from the data. Yet she shrank from her own insights.

The deeper we go into this cycle, the clearer the risk of a policy mistake. Broad U6 unemployment is dropping very fast and has reached 9.7pc, which may be equivalent to the 8pc lows of the last cycle given the notorious mismatch in job skills. The labour ‘quit rate’ is soaring as workers feel confident enough to switch jobs and push for better pay.

In the end, the Fed may have to resort to a series of “nasty staccato hikes” that are faster than anyone expects, which would push the economy into recession:

Stimulus is building up. The bonanza from cheap oil – worth $1,000 a year for average households, says Mrs Yellen – is accumulating in bank accounts and has yet to be spent. The fiscal austerity of recent years is giving way to a net fiscal boost worth 0.5pc of GDP in 2016 as state and local governments stoke spending.

Mrs Yellen acknowledges the dangers. She knows that the Fed could be forced into a series of nasty staccato hikes if it waits too long now – the time-honoured cause of past recessions – yet the FOMC continues to take a calculated risk that it can navigate these reefs, that a dovish course is the lesser of evils.

In the end, while the dovish tone of the FOMC was a surprise at a tactical level, the long-term script remains the same. In the late cycle phase of an expansion, capacity tightens in both manufacturing and employment, which creates inflationary pressures. Commodity prices rise. The Fed ultimately responds by raising rates at a rapid rate, which pushes the economy into recession. This period also coincides with the double top in gold prices that we have seen in the past. The only missing variable is the timing of the tightening cycle.

For now, we haven’t even seen the first gold top yet. So let’s party.

The week ahead: Waiting for pullback

Looking to the week ahead, the dovish FOMC statement last week poured gasoline on the bullish fires and stocks saw another leg up, despite the fact that it began last week in an overbought condition.

Nevertheless, I am starting to see cautionary signs. The CNN Money Fear and Greed Index is showing a high level of greed. The stock market has experienced difficulty advancing during past episodes. The big question is, “Could we be seeing a repeat of the failed rally of last October and November?”

Insiders are pulling back from their pattern of aggressive buying. With the caveat that weekly readings are noisy, the latest update of insider activity from Barron’s indicates that this group of “smart investors” have toned down their purchases of their own company`s stock that has been in place since last November. Their behavior is an eerie repeat of their activity seen during the last stock market rally.

Both the current market and the market seen last Oct/Nov are overbought in a similar fashion. As the chart below shows, the SPX is experiencing a series of “good” overbought readings on RSI-5, which is a typical characteristic of breadth thrusts. Moreover, RSI-14 is reaching levels where the market pulled back after the last breadth thrust episode in October 2015.

While some market weakness is quite likely next week, here is what I am watching for to distinguish between an ordinary minor correction/consolidation and a period of more serious price weakness. As the above chart shows, the relative performance of junk bonds rolled over as the market topped out. This was a warning sign that risk appetite was weakening. The behavior of the junk bond market will be an important indicator of the health of the current rally.

I am also watching how market leadership evolves. The market leadership of NASDAQ stocks rolled over during the consolidation period last November. The relative performance of the current leadership, namely the cyclical stocks, will also be an important “tell” of the future direction of stock prices in the near future.

There are reasons to be optimistic. Tom McClellan observed that the Ratio Adjusted Summation Index (RASI) is showing sufficient strength to rise about the +500 level even after fall below that in the most recent sell-off. This is an indication of underlying breadth strength and his conclusion was the current advance has further room to run.

In addition, Urban Carmel highlighted analysis from the Stock Trader`s Almanac that when the market experiences a positive reaction to an FOMC meeting, it typically sees a minor top in the following week, pulls back, and then rises to further highs.

My inner investor is enjoying the party. He had bought stocks on weakness, with an overweight position in the resource extraction sectors.

My inner trader was in cash during the move last week as he was unwilling to roll the dice on the FOMC meeting. He is waiting for the likely pullback next week and watching the market internals before making a decision on whether to buy or not.

A post-FOMC market blastoff, but in which direction?

Mid-week update: I thought that I would write my mid-week update a day early, because of the binary outcome of the FOMC meeting. This meeting could turn out to be a critical turning point for the short and medium term tone of the markets.

It`s becoming fairly clear that the Fed is unlikely to raise rates at its March meeting. Marketwatch highlighted analysis from BoAML indicating that the Yellen Fed has not historically surprised the market with rate hikes.

On Friday, a team of currency and interest-rate strategists at Bank of America Merill Lynch suggested that it might be time for a new approach.

After studying Fed-funds futures data, the strategists discerned that the Fed has typically provided investors with plenty of warning before raising rates.

As the following chart shows, the Fed hasn’t raised interest rates unless the market assigned it at least a 60% probability of doing so. This seems to contradict the Fed’s desire that every meeting be viewed by investors as potentially “live,” meaning the central bank could make a rate move at any one of its confabs.

If the Fed were to raise rates either at its April or June meeting, now is the time to start telegraphing that move. Here is what`s at stake as we await the FOMC announcement.

A vulnerable advance

The stock market has been rallying for the last few weeks, leaving it with extended, overbought and vulnerable to a negative surprise. Trade Followers observed on the weekend that Twitter strength for every sector was positive – and such conditions are usually followed by pullbacks.

 

This chart from Bespoke shows how extended the market internals are:

 

This chart from IndexIndicators presents a two-sided technical view. Either the market is nearing breadth support, where it has bottomed in the recent past, or it is just about to break support and start a more significant pullback.

 

A hawkish statement from the FOMC would have the effect of raising bond yields and causing the greenback to rally. Marketwatch reports that David Kostin of Goldman Sachs estimates that a 10% move in the Trade Weighted Dollar would amount to roughly $3 of SPX EPS growth. Thus, the tone of the FOMC statement could either boost or depress stock prices. The greatest sensitivity would be in Technology, Materials, Energy and Industrial stocks, which are the late-cycle sectors that are emerging as the market leaders today (see All aboard the reflation train, but beware of derailments).

 

As the USD is negatively correlated with commodity prices, a strengthening dollar is likely to stop the commodity rally in its tracks. The chart of gold stocks below shows how vulnerable the commodity complex is to a hawkish Fed. The % bullish indicator (bottom panel) is already very extended and overbought. Moreover, the silver/gold ratio is exhibiting a worrisome negative divergence, as the higher precious metal (poor man’s gold) silver is underperforming gold even as gold stocks rally.

I could go on about how overbought and vulnerable the stock market is, but you get the idea.

A “good” overbought condition?

On the other hand, there is no law that says overbought market have to fall. Overbought markets can get more overbought as the kind of breadth thrusts that we have experienced can lead to a series of “good” overbought conditions. Todd Salamone of Schaeffer’s Research indicated that he is seeing some parallels with the SPY advance seen last October. The market rallied, consolidated sideways, and then strengthened further.

 

 
Moreover, Salamone observed that the current rally has been accompanied but skepticism, which is bullish:

As we discussed above, and despite the SPY and SPX rallying by slightly more than 10% in only a one-month time frame, we think the rally from the February lows still has strong potential to continue in the weeks ahead. Remarkably, per an observation I made on Twitter last week, short interest on SPX components actually increased in the mid-February to early March reporting period, even as the index advanced 6% in that time frame. A sharp advance like this would normally suggest short covering, leaving the market vulnerable to downside after the shorts have covered and technical resistance comes into play.

The skepticism can also be found in the latest Ticker Sense blogger sentiment poll, which shows an equal number of bulls and bears.

 

For what it’s worth, Jeff Hirsch at Trader’s Alamanac pointed out options expire this week (OpEx). March OpEx weeks have shown a bullish bias in the past.

 

 

 

The stakes are high

In conclusion, the stakes are high as we await the FOMC decision and statement. I have no idea of how the tone of the statement might sound like. A dovish statement has the potential to push the SPX to test its former highs, while a hawkish statement would cause an extended market to pull back.

Stay tuned.

The real story behind the Apple-FBI fight

I normally confine my comments to top-down analysis and I normally don`t make my personal opinions on legal and political issues like the current case of Apple vs. the FBI, but a comment by John Oliver makes many of the issues much less black and white (via Barry Ritholz).

I know that Apple (AAPL) has made various legal arguments about why they shouldn’t be compelled to help the FBI crack the code on that iPhone in question, but the commercial stakes for AAPL are much higher than that. Cooperating with the FBI would breach the Apple’s competitive moat and has the potential to spell the downfall of the company.

Apple`s moat

Here is one aspect of the AAPL moat that I have not heard any analyst raise. When you buy an Apple device, you are not just buying an iPhone, iPad, etc., you are buying into an enclosed ecosystem with security features.

One of the reasons why I have stayed with iPhones is the implicit strength of the Apple moat. There is no doubt that a number of competing smartphones have superior features, but I know that if my iPhone, which is operated according to manufacturer specifications (not jailbroken, updated with the latest software), gets hacked, Apple will move heaven and earth to fix the problem and make me whole at any cost. If it costs them $1 billion, they’ll spend $1 billion. If it costs them $5 billion, they’ll spend $5 billion. Otherwise, Tim Cook et al knows that they might as well kiss the entire Apple franchise goodbye.

Now imagine if a Samsung Android phone got hacked. Responsibility is far more diffuse. There will be lots of finger pointing. The problem isn’t Android, it’s Samsung, or the wireless carrier and so on.

No doubt Tim Cook remembers the cautionary tale from back in 2013 when Blackberry relented and gave India’s security services its codes so that the could read messages on its BBM messaging system:

According to leaked Indian government documents seen by the Times of India, “the lawful intereception system for BlackBerry Services is ready for use”.

Once implemented, the system will allow the Indian government to track emails and email attachments in real time; to see when BBM messages have been delivered and read; and to intercept web browsing data, according to the report.

Crucially, the Indian government appear to have dropped previous demands to have access to BlackBerry’s Enterprise servers, which carries BlackBerry’s corporate email services. Instead, BlackBerry will have to notify the authorities about which companies are using the Enterprise service.

At that time, Apple was strong in iPhones in the consumer product segment, but Blackberry was still strong in the enterprise space. That Blackberry decision turned out to be a momentous error as it willingly allowed its moat to be breached. If you are willing to give your codes to India, how many other country will you give your code as the price to gain access to that market?

It marked the beginning of the end for Blackberry as a device maker.

I have my opinions as to whether AAPL should cooperate with the FBI, but that’s not what’s at stake here. What’s at stake is the future of the AAPL franchise itself.

If the US government wins its case, it will mark a long-term sell signal for AAPL stock.

The dirty little secret behind “smart beta” investing

Some minor buzz has arisen among finance academics and professionals as a result of a paper by Ronald Kahn and Michael Lemmon, both of whom are employed by Blackrock, entitled The Asset Manager’s Dilemma: How Smart Beta Is Disrupting the Investment Management Industry. Here is the abstract:

Smart beta products are a disruptive financial innovation with the potential to significantly affect the business of traditional active management. They provide an important component of active management via simple, transparent, rules-based portfolios delivered at lower fees. They clarify that what investors need from their active managers is pure alpha—returns beyond those from static exposures to smart beta factors. To effectively position themselves for this evolution in active management, asset managers need to understand the mix of smart beta and pure alpha in their products, as well as their comparative advantages relative to competitors in delivering these important components.

As Blackrock is a supplier of “smart beta” fund products, are these authors talking their own book or is this truly a new form of financial disruption?

A history lesson

To truly understand the underpinnings of “smart beta”, we begin with a history lesson, starting with the advent of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). According to Wikipedia, Treynor and Sharpe formulated CAPM to explain stock returns this way:

In plain English, CAPM explains the sensitivity of a well-diversified stock portfolio by its beta. In an era when investment professionals just picked stocks, CAPM was an enormous leap forward in financial innovation. Portfolio managers suddenly had a dial called beta. If you were bullish on the market, all you had to do was raise the beta on the portfolio. Conversely, if you were bearish, you could become more defensive by reducing portfolio beta.

In the wake of CAPM innovation and its sister theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) which postulated that you couldn’t beat the market, great controversies erupted. Throughout the 1970s, academics found a number of “market anomalies” such as market capitalization (small cap), value anomalies such as low PE and low PB. Well-diversified (underline the words well-diversified) portfolios using these techniques did in fact beat the market.

There were further problems with CAPM that led to the financial theory behind smart beta. Imagine that you formed two well-diversified portfolios with similar betas, the first composed of oil stocks and the second composed of airline stocks. We know that these two portfolios will behave very differently in the face of an oil shock, which is contrary to the expectations specified by CAPM.

Stephen Ross formulated the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) by decomposing market beta in CAPM into a number of unspecified factor betas. Portfolio returns could be explained by a portfolio`s sensitivity to different factor betas, such as different sectors, or macro sensitivity such as interest rates, housing starts, inflationary expectations and so on.

Thus, factor investing was born.

Fabozzi on factor investing

CFA candidates are well aware of Frank Fabozzi, who is now a professor at EDHEC Business School. In a recent interview, Fabozzi described factor investing this way:

The belief is that if you invest in factors, you can either provide a return in the long term that will be in excess of the return on a capitalization-weighted index, or provide a better diversification format.

So which is it? Is factor investing better diversification (better beta) or a way of beating the market (alpha)? Fabozzi went on:

So that`s where it stands right now for factor-based investing strategies. They can still be active or passive strategies, but the search is still for things such as are there factors that continue to provide a risk premium over time – and that will always be an empirical issue. Some market participants talk about pure factors. What they really mean is time-tested factors that have delivered a risk premium…

…And it`s an empirical challenge; there is no underlying theory about these factors. There are economic reasons or behavioral finance reasons why you might expect a factor to be rewarded. Behavioral finance theorists do a very good job of explaining that link, but the empirical work will go on.

In other words, these factors seem to work, but nobody can really explain why.

1980s technology in a new package

Cam here. Let me explain how I once used factors as a quantitative portfolio manager to pick stocks. We would combine different uncorrelated factors, such as growth and value, to engineer a stock selection process. Further, we would selectively turn factors off and on by sector. For example, a factor like low PE may work reasonably well in a sector grouping like banks, but you would not use it to pick technology stocks because low PE technology tended to be markers for the busted growth companies that have lost their competitive position. On the other hand, a momentum or growth factor like estimate revision is probably appropriate for most sectors.

These are the kinds of techniques that quants have been using since the 1970s and 1980s to pick stocks. Today, factor investing techniques are easily accessible. Everyone has the same databases. They all look at the same factors, though the formulations are slightly different.

Blackrock et al has just re-packaged factor investing as “smart beta” as a way to sell funds. While some of these factors can and do work over time (so does “value”, “growth” and “momentum”), but they don’t work all the time and investors may have to exercise a great deal of patience (see Where I am finding value in today’s market).

The true financial innovation does not come from the factor investing technique, which is well know. Rather, itcomes from how factor investing is marketed. That’s because this marketing technique absolves the portfolio manager from poor performance. The Kahn and Lemmon paper states:

Smart beta products change the division of responsibility between investor and manager. An investor can fire an active manager who underperforms the cap-weighted benchmark over time. The investor is responsible for hiring the manager, and the manager is responsible for outperforming the benchmark. But an investor should not fire a smart-beta manager who delivers the promised exposures if those exposures lead to underperformance. The investor, not the manager, is responsible for the choice of those exposures.

In other words, you, the investor, takes all the risks for picking the factor, or “smart beta” that the fund company peddled to you. Heads they win and tails they win.

Is this financial innovation and disruption? It is, but only for the fund companies.

All aboard the reflation train, but beware of derailments

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

The signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Neutral
  • Trading model: Bullish

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

The late cycle/inflation bandwagon

Just as I started to write about the late cycle and reflation trade theme last week (see RIP Correction. Reflationary resurrection next?), it seemed that the whole world was rushing to jump on this bandwagon. These conditions suggest that my thesis of late cycle sector leadership of capital goods and resource extraction industries should have some legs as the Street’s stampede is just starting. Before rushing to hop a ride on the Reflation Express, though, I would caution that a couple of risks lie ahead. In the short run, the advance appears extended and vulnerable to a pullback. As well, the FOMC meeting next week could be a source of significant market volatility.

Let’s begin with the macro big picture. The American economy is showing definite signs that it is moving into the late cycle of its expansions phase, characterized by tight capacity utilization, low unemployment and rising inflation. New Deal Democrat wrote a two part series (links to Part 1 and Part 2) pointing out that many of the mid-cycle indicators that he watches have peaked, though immediate recession risk is low:

So let’s summarize: of the 7 mid cycle indicators, 5 have probably peaked: 2 of the 3 consumption metrics, plus YoY employment, capital formation, and consumer sentiment. One – the real personal savings rate – is equivocal, and only 1 – spending on durable vs. nondurable goods – has not triggered.

Barring a big surprise, we are past mid-cycle, which most turning at roughly year-end 2014. That isn’t meant to be a precise 50% marker, as in the past these in the aggregate have turned sometime in the middle 1/3 of the expansion. In other words, it is time to focus on the long and short indicators of approaching recession, although the chances are relatively slim that it happens before 2017.

In his weekly monitor of high frequency economic data, he concluded that the US industrial economy is starting to turn up after its recent soft patch:

Once again the bifurcation of decent consumer economy, poor industrial economy (at least that portion tied to commodity extraction and exports) that began one year ago, is changing — and generally for the better, as commodity production and transportation look like they have turned positive. The recent weakness in real money supply appears to have ended. The dollar is becoming less of a drag. The only new negative is the continued deterioration in tax withholding.

Gavyn Davies observed that their models are showing signs of rising inflationary pressures:

Fulcrum’s inflation forecasting models (BVAR models that include price inflation, the exchange rate and oil prices) do suggest that the inflation process may have firmed up lately. The graphs below show that headline inflation will start to rise soon, and that core inflation will be hovering around 2 per cent by year end. These forecasts are a bit above the FOMC’s predictions that were published in December, so it is possible that the Fed’s inflation path could be slightly firmer when it appears with the March 15/16 FOMC meeting.

David Rosenberg came to a similar conclusion about the reflation theme (via Value Walk):

Gluskin Sheff Chief Economist David Rosenberg is bucking the bearish trend on Wall Street and running with the bulls instead, touting positive jobs and wages data as a sign that inflation—the current gold standard for economic recovery—may be right around the corner.

He noted that the Fed’s latest Beige Book indicated that wage pressures are escalating, which of course is good news for the economy. Oil prices might also be on the path to recovery as investors have been rewarding major oil giants for cutting their capital expenditures plans for this year.

Mr. Market takes a ride on the Reflation Express

The markets have also pivoted towards a reflationary paradigm for the global economy. As recessionary fears faded in the past few weeks, equities rallied in a coordinated fashion around the world. The chart below shows that US stocks, as measured by the SPX, staged an upside breakout through its 50 day moving average (dma) and regained its 200 dma level on Friday. European stocks, as measured by the Euro STOXX 50 and the FTSE 100, also rose above their 50 dma.

Reflationary gains are not limited to the US and Europe. The regional markets of China’s trading partners have all regained their 50 dma levels, with the exception of the Shanghai index:

The late cycle leadership theme was evident at a sector level as well. The chart below shows the USD Index (top panel), which is inversely correlated to commodity prices and the relative market performance of the energy and metals and mining stocks. The USD is weakening, while both of the resource extraction groups pictured have rallied out of relative downtrends, which is bullish. In addition, a soft USD should be supportive of better earnings growth of global multi-nationals.

As further independent confirmation of the late cycle investment theme, JC Parets recently penned an article to buy resource-rich Canada while shorting America.

Supportive sentiment readings

Sentiment models indicate that stock prices are poised for further gains. While some sentiment readings have moved from crowded short to neutral, the more important funds flow metrics (where people are actually putting actual money on the line) are still showing healthy signs of skepticism about the latest stock market rally. Josh Brown indicated that the latest RiskAnalyze report showed that advisors had gone risk-on, but only in the bond market. In equities, they pulled money out of the US and put it to work in defensive international stocks:


Winners (advisor flows TO these investments increased substantially):
  1. High Yield Bonds (HYG, JNK, SHYAX)
  2. Healthcare (XLV)
  3. MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility (EFAV)
Losers (advisor flows FROM these investments increased substantially):

  1. Russell 1000 (IWF)
  2. Short Term US Treasury (IEI, IEF)
  3. Global Bond (TPINX, TGBAX)
Further, Dana Lyons noticed that the ISE equity-only call/put ratio had been under 100% for four days running last week, which is a historically low reading indicating excessive put buying. Similar conditions in the past have been followed by stronger stock prices.

 

 

The latest NAAIM survey of RIAs also reflect a healthy dose of skepticism. Bullishness actually ticked down slightly during the week even as the market advanced.

While the aforementioned skeptical readings are contrarian bullish, the behavior of the “smart money” insiders is constructive. Barron’s reports that insiders have been steadily buying since November:

 

The week ahead: The FOMC wildcard

The one actor that could derail the current market rally and stop late-cycle sector strength in its tracks is the FOMC, which is meeting next week. Jon Hilsenrath reported last week that the Fed is unlikely to raise interest rates at next week’s meeting, though the April and June meetings are “live”:

Federal Reserve officials are likely to hold short-term interest rates steady at their policy meeting next week and leave open-ended when they’ll next raise rates given their uncertainties about markets and global growth.

For Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, that likely means crafting a message that gives the central bank flexibility to lift rates in April or June should the economy perform well in the weeks ahead, without committing to a move in case economic data disappoint or new market turmoil erupts.

Fed watcher Tim Duy thought that an interest pause is more a less a foregone conclusion. The bigger issue is whether the post-meeting statement is likely to be dovish, neutral or hawkish. Duy believes that Yellen would stay dovish for now, but that`s only an educated guess:

Where does Yellen stand? My sense is that six month ago Yellen’s position would align close to Fischer. But I think she would now find Brainard’s position more persuasive, especially with Dudley’s support. That suggests that the Yellen will work to pull the Fed toward a neutral/dovish statement.

Bottom Line: Fed will hold steady next week. Key FOMC participants are shifting in a dovish direction. The financial market volatility, which induced clear tightening in financial conditions, bolstered the Brainard’s arguments. Despite solid incoming data, the Fed will find it necessary to tread cautiously in the months ahead.

Whatever the Fed does next week, it will likely cause a minor earthquake in the financial markets. If the message is dovish, equities are likely to spike upwards, along with commodity prices as the USD dives. A hawkish tilt would reverse some of the gains seen in stocks and late cycle sectors.

Technically, stock prices appear to be overextended as the SPX tests its 200 dma. The CNN Money Fear and Greed Index shows a greedy reading equal to the level reached last October, though this index has risen further in the past.

Breadth readings from IndexIndicators shows that the market is very overbought and vulnerable to a setback.

My inner investor had been accumulating equities on weakness, with an overweight position in resource extraction industries. He is standing pat with his positions.

My inner trader got stopped out of his long equity position by the market weakness on Thursday. He is staying in cash until the FOMC meeting next week. Despite the bullish intermediate term tailwinds that he is seeing for stock prices, he doesn’t believe the risk/reward ratio is favorable enough to play a event-driven market with a binary outcome like a FOMC meeting. At times like these, discretion is the better part of valor.

Teaching my readers how to fish

In the past week, I had discussions with several different people about the operating philosophy of Humble Student of the Markets, The objective of the website can be summarized by a variation of an old adage:

Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day.
Teach a man how to fish…he’ll want to get a boat.

I don`t want to just give my readers a fish for the day, I would rather help them build their own boat.
 

Why my boat is different from yours

Think of a building a boat as like building a portfolio. The portfolio management process consists of the following steps:

  1. Deciding on what to buy and sell;
  2. Deciding on how much to buy and sell; and
  3. Deciding on how to execute the trade.
While we discuss step 1 endlessly in these pages and elsewhere, the other steps are equally important. Step 2 is also a reason why what I write in these pages is not investment advice, namely I know nothing about you:

 

  • I know nothing about your cash flow, or spending needs;
  • I know nothing about your return objectives;
  • I know nothing about how much risk you are willing to take, or your pain threshold;
  • I know nothing about your tax situation, or even what tax jurisdictions you live in;
  • And so on…
If I know nothing about any of those things, how could I possibly know if anything I write is appropriate for you? I was asked recently why I don’t post my portfolios and their performance. While posting my trades represent a disclosure of any possible conflicts in my writing, my own portfolios are a function of my own cash flow needs, my return objectives, my own pain thresholds, etc. How could any portfolio that I post be appropriate to anyone else? Your mileage will vary.

 

Don’t look for a fish

Here is an example of what I am talking about. I had been recently bullish on stocks and both my investment account (inner investor) and trading account (inner trader) got long. My trading account sold and got stopped out of its long position as a result of my risk control discipline, which is a function my risk profile and pain threshold. Subsequent market action indicates that my inner trader got faked out and the market rallied. In that case, it appears that my inner trader was wrong by getting stopped out of his position, while my inner investor was right.

This incident also illustrates the point of the do’s and don’ts of reading the content on this website. Anyone blindly following my trades is in effect looking for a fish. But there is no fish. The markets are not easy. You have to build a boat that’s right for you.I have two boats (used by my inner investor and inner trader). Taking a ride on either of mine by blindly following my trades means adopting my investment objectives and risk profile, which you know nothing about.
 

My two boats

The chart below shows an example of how my inner trader thinks about the stock market. He isn’t always right, but he has been more right than wrong. His portfolio turnover averages 200% per month, which is not appropriate for everyone.

By contrast, here is an example of how my inner investor thinks about the market. The time horizon is longer. Turnover is much lower, but drawdown risk and pain threshold is higher.

For full details, see:

Neither of those boats may be right for you. The purpose of Humble Student of the Markets is not to give anyone detailed trading advice, including the specific timing of trades. I can only make suggestions, but you have to decide if those suggestions are right for you.

I am not here to give you a fish. I am here to teach you how to fish and help you build your own boat. That way, you can eat for a lifetime.

The bulls are winning, but they shouldn’t relax

Mid-week market update: On the weekend, I wrote that the stock market was experiencing a bullish breadth thrust and the market is likely to see a series of “good”overbought readings where stock prices either continue to grind up or consolidate sideways as they get overbought (see RIP Correction. Reflationary resurrection next?). So far, so good. The market seems to be behaving according to the script I laid out so far.

As the hourly chart of the SPX shows. The market weakness on Monday and Tuesday were relatively minor. The index saw a minor positive RSI divergence and the 50 hour moving average has so far acted as support.

 

As well, this chart from IndexIndicators show that the net 20-day highs-lows, which has been a good intermediate term (1-2 week) trading indicator, seems to have found support at a high level. If this continues, it would lend support to the “good”overbought bull case.

While I remain optimistic about the technical underpinnings of the bullish scenario, that`s only half the story.

The USD wildcard

If we were to move beyond the standard technical analytical framework and consider inter-market, or cross-asset, analysis, a different picture emerges. One of the fundamental foundations for a renewed upleg in stock prices has been the weakness in the US Dollar. The USD has started to roll over and weaken in the last few weeks. Indeed, the Broad based Trade Weighted Dollar has violated its technical uptrend, which suggests that the days of King Dollar are over.

A weaker USD has two benefits for stock prices:

  • Improved earnings outlook: Large cap companies that do business overseas has seen their margins squeezed by the strong dollar. As the currency weakens, this will feed into better earnings growth for exporters and therefore an improvement in the EPS growth outlook, which would ultimately be bullish for stock prices.

 

 

  • Turnaround in energy and materials: The USD is inversely correlated to commodity prices. A weaker USD translates into higher commodity prices, which is supportive of the beaten up energy and resource extraction sectors. While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but the chart below shows the performance of the USD Index (top panel) and the relative performance of the US and European energy sectors (middle panel) and the relative performance of the US and European materials sectors.

 

 

In other words, what happens to stocks is highly dependent on the fate of the US Dollar. There are a couple of key events coming up in the next few days.
First up is the ECB meeting. What will the ECB do to stimulate the eurozone economy? How much of the ECB initiatives have been discounted by the market? How will the currency markets react? These are all very good questions that will determine the fate of the EURUSD exchange rate, which is a key input to the USD Index.

 

 

In addition, we have the FOMC meeting next week. Will they or won’t they raise rates? Jon (“Fedwire”) Hilsenrath of the WSJ wrote that the Fed is likely to stay its hand at the March meeting, but keep its options open for the next couple of meeting:

Federal Reserve officials are likely to hold short-term interest rates steady at their policy meeting next week and leave open-ended when they’ll next raise rates given their uncertainties about markets and global growth.

For Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, that likely means crafting a message that gives the central bank flexibility to lift rates in April or June should the economy perform well in the weeks ahead, without committing to a move in case economic data disappoint or new market turmoil erupts.

If they don’t raise rates, which is the most likely outcome, will the FOMC statement be hawkish, neutral or dovish? Tim Duy thinks that Yellen will wind up leaning dovish next week (Cam: and what the Fed chair wants, the Fed chair gets):

Where does Yellen stand? My sense is that six month ago Yellen’s position would align close to Fischer. But I think she would now find Brainard’s position more persuasive, especially with Dudley’s support. That suggests that the Yellen will work to pull the Fed toward a neutral/dovish statement.

Bottom Line: Fed will hold steady next week. Key FOMC participants are shifting in a dovish direction. The financial market volatility, which induced clear tightening in financial conditions, bolstered the Brainard’s arguments. Despite solid incoming data, the Fed will find it necessary to tread cautiously in the months ahead.

At this point, Hilsenrath and Duy are only engaged in informed speculation. At this point, equity bulls should feel encouraged, but they shouldn’t let down their guards. There are a lot of balls in the air.

My inner trader remains nervously long stocks.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

Where I am finding value in today’s market

I was playing around with Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG) on the weekend with a focus on changes in sector leadership (see my previous post RIP Recession. Reflationary resurrection next?). RRG charts measure how a stock or sector is performing relative to a benchmark on a short and long term basis as a way of better understanding the evolution of market leadership. An idealized rotation cycle would see a stock or sector rotate in a clockwise fashion starting at the lower right quadrant (weakening) to the lower left (lagging) to upper left (improving) and to the top right (leading).

When I turned the lens from sector leadership to market styles, or factors, I got a big surprise.

The chart below tells the story. The low volatility is starting to roll over in relative performance, which is similar to the observation that defensive stock leadership is rolling over. High beta stocks, small caps and momentum stocks are still struggling. The big surprise is the rise of value stocks as the likely new leadership.

 

Perhaps it is no surprise that even Rob Arnott, the father of “smart beta” advocated a switch from quality stocks to value stocks. He stated that the outperformance of quality was getting stretched, while value stocks were trading at large historical discounts (via Marketwatch):

As a sign of how beaten up the value style is, consider this post which asks “How good is Buffett really?” and this article from Business Insider opining that the legendary value investor is way overrated. Are articles like these signs of capitulation for the value style?

I wrote about the Buffett performance record back in December (see Is Warren Buffett losing his touch). The Berkshire Hathaway return record has been marred by the headwinds posed by the value style. The top panel of the chart below is the relative returns of the Russell 1000 Value Index, which shows how badly the value discipline has performed in the last few years. The bottom chart is the relative return of Berkshire Hathaway B (BRKb) against the market. The relative performance of BRKb has been so-so against the index, but stellar against value stocks.

When I zoom into a shorter term time frame, value stocks have staged a rally out of a relative downtrend and may be in the process of making a relative performance bottom.

For investors and traders, current conditions suggests that value stocks could be a source of superior returns over the next few months, possibly years.

Disclosure: Long BRKb

RIP Correction. Reflationary resurrection next?

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

 

The signals of each model are as follows:

  • Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities
  • Trend Model signal: Neutral
  • Trading model: Bullish

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

Looking past the recession scare

Throughout the most recent period stock market weakness, I steadfastly maintained that the market was just undergoing a corrective period and recessionary fears were overblown (see Why this is a correction and not a bear market published January 17, 2016). Now that signs of economic growth are returning and the SPX has rallied above its 50 day moving average (dma) and stayed there for a week, it`s time to move beyond the angst of a possible bear market and look forward to what`s in store for the rest of 2016.

The return of growth

The reappearance of economic growth was not a big surprise to me. Despite all of the fears, the early warning signs of a recession were just not there (see my Recession Watch resource). The chart below of the Citigroup US Economic Surprise Index, which measures whether economic releases are beating or missing expectations, tells the story of how macro expectations got beaten down and their subsequent reversal.

The February jobs report was no exception to the story of an improvement in macro outlook. Payrolls beat expectations and saw another solid gain, in the context of an expansionary trend (chart via Calculated Risk). The unemployment rate also held steady at 4.9%.

The participation rate rose 0.2%, which was another positive. Average hourly earnings was down -0.1% from January and up 2.2% YoY, but that was likely a statistical quirk, according to Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics. Shepherdson pointed out that average hourly earnings tended to miss expectations when the 15th, which is a semi-monthly payroll day, occurs after the survey period (via Business Insider):

The level of angst is also receding on a global basis. Remember all the hand wringing over European banks? Even the CoCo bond market is recovering (via Benn Steil);

However,John Butters of Factset reported that the latest consensus forward EPS estimates continues to look wobbly. I can interpret this in a couple of ways. The bullish interpretation is that the bullish improvement in technical indicators are leading the market and fundamental analysts are behind the curve. This represents a “wall of worry” for the market to climb and suggests more price upside as investors start to react to a more positive earnings outlook in the weeks ahead. The more cautious view is that the market will find it difficult to rise in a sustainable fashion until forward EPS start to improve on a consistent basis. A review of the chart below shows a weak confirmation of the first and more bullish hypothesis as stock prices seem to slightly lead changes in EPS expectations.

For what it’s worth, Brian Gilmartin confirmed the lagging effects of the evolution of forward earnings, as least at an anecdotal level:

A friend shot me an email yesterday saying he was lightening up his equity exposure into this rally the last few weeks. My response to him was that in Q1 ’09 the SP 500’s “forward 4-quarter” estimate didn’t stop DECLINING until May ’09. The SP 500 bottomed on March 9, 2009 or a full 8 weeks before the estimate started rising.

Gilmartin went on to state that he believed that technical price action is likely to lead forward earnings estimates:

In this market environment, technical action is paramount. Can the SP 500 regain the 200 day moving average? Can the bounce in the laggard sectors of the last few years be sustained? Given the under-performance of the commodity and asset classes like emerging markets for long periods of time, I think the groups could be in the longer-term process of bottoming. The SP 500 could continue to work higher just with very different leadership than the last few years, even though the two heaviest weights in the SP 500 – Technology and Financials – could not be considered expensive on a valuation basis.

What’s next?

Leaving that technical vs. fundamental debate aside, now that recovery is becoming more evident, what’s next?

The biggest surprise for the market will be the rise of inflationary pressures. I wrote back in December that the next major shift in market leadership would be capital goods and late cycle resource stocks (see The 2016 macro surprise that no one talks about). Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management had pointed out that the stock market typically underwent a leadership change when unemployment fell to 5% (4.9% today, annotations in red are mine).

My own work showed that there was definite relationship between energy and unemployment. When the unemployment rate dipped to 5% or less, energy stocks tended to outperform. The only exception occurred during the late 1990’s as the cyclical effects of inflationary pressures were overshadowed by the Tech Bubble.

The behavior of commodity prices is supportive of the rising inflationary pressure thesis. Polemic’s Pains pointed out last week that he was seeing recovery in industrial metal prices, such as iron ore…

Iron ore

Nickel…

Nickel

Zinc…

Zinc

…and even *gasp* oil!

Crude oil

The bond market is also telling us the same story.

 

Emerging cyclical leadership

An analysis of market leadership is also lends credence to the bull case for cyclical stocks. The chart below shows the relative performance of cyclical sectors and industries. Industrial stocks, which represent the the capital goods stocks, have formed a relative return bottom and staged an upside relative breakout in early February; the cyclically sensitive semiconductor stocks rallied out of a relative downtrend in August and they been forming a relative base ever since; the metals and mining group also broke out through a relative downtrend in late January; and even the lagging energy sector appears to be on the verge of a breakout through a relative downtrend.

A closer examination of the relative performance of the different industry components of the energy sector indicates that this sector is about to breakout from a relative downtrend. The charts below show the relative performance of energy (XLE, top panel), exploration and production stocks (XOP, middle panel) and oil service stocks (OIH, bottom panel). The more volatile and high beta oil service industry has already staged a rally out of the relative downtrend, which is a likely leading indicator for the entire sector.

We see a similar message from Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG). RRG charts measure how a stock or sector is performing relative to a benchmark on a short and long term basis as a way of better understanding the evolution of market leadership. Rotation cycle typically move clockwise.  An idealized stock or sector rotation cycle would start at the lower right quadrant (weakening), move to the lower left (lagging), then to to upper left (improving) and finally to the top right (leading).

The RRG chart below of US sectors against the SPX shows that defensive sector (Staples and Utilities) leadership is starting to roll over. The nascent leadership is coming from the aforementioned cyclical sectors, namely Energy, Materials and Industrials.

Relative Rotation Graph (US sectors)

 

Applying RRG analysis globally to regional markets relative to the MSCI All-Country World Index also tells the same story (note that these are all US-listed ETFs so returns are all in USD). The emerging leadership is mainly coming from resource intensive countries and regions such as Australia, Canada and Latin America.

 

A 2016 roadmap (not a forecast)

I would point out that much of my macro assumption is based on the Phillips Curve, which postulates a short-term inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. It is also a model that that the Fed believes in very much, particularly Janet Yellen, who was trained as a labor economist.

Here is my base case scenario for the remainder of 2016. The correction of early 2016 was a false alarm, but the stock market is undergoing the process of making a top in 2016 (also see my past post The road to a 2016 market top).

The remainder of 2016 begins with a stock market recovery, led by deep cyclical sectors such as resource extraction and capital goods. Inflationary expectations pick up. The Fed gets uneasy and, eventually, the FOMC starts to believe that monetary policy is falling behind the curve on its inflation mandate. The Fed tightens more aggressively than anyone expects. With the European and Chinese growth outlook still wobbly, a slowing American economy will be enough to push the world into a global recession. It will be ugly, but the consequences will not be felt until 2017 (also see Why the next recession will be very ugly),

I would add the caveat that this scenario represents a roadmap and not a forecast. There are far too many moving parts for this exact scenario to become reality. Here are a few wildcards that could change the timing of Federal Reserve actions for 2016:

  • Market uncertainty from overseas: The Brexit referendum is June 23 and financial markets could be very fragile in the run-up to the referendum. The Fed has stated in the past that it is closely watching overseas developments. Market turmoil could cause the Fed to stay on hold for longer than expected.
  • The 2016 election: As of the time of this writing, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the most likely candidates to face off against each other in the presidential race. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a divisive figure and his utterances are likely to produce a higher level of market volatility, though the general direction of his economics is Keynesian in nature. A President Trump has a high likelihood of producing an inflationary blow-off (see Super Tuesday special: How President Trump could produce a market blow-off). How does the Fed or the market react?
  • The US Dollar: USD strength has been a headwind for economic growth and corporate earnings. However, Dollar strength is starting to roll over and the Trade Weighted Dollar is testing a technically important uptrend line. A weaker Dollar will be earnings growth positive, but interpreted by the Fed as inflationary.

 

 

My inner investor has been accumulating long stock positions, with an overweight position in the resource sectors. This is a late-cycle bull and the prospect of rising inflation is not immediately fatal to stock prices. The following chart from Jim Paulsen tells the story of what happened to the stock market when the unemployment rate fell to 5% or less.

 

 

The week ahead: A Wall of Worry

Look to the week ahead, the stock market ended on Friday with extremely overbought readings, However, a case can be made that when the market makes a powerful move upward with the accompaniment of positive breadth, it does not necessarily have to pull back, but either consolidate sideways or continue to grind upward.First of all, the good news for the bulls is that this advance was accompanied by positive breadth as measured on a number of different dimensions.

Further encouraging news came from Mark Hulbert, who pointed out that the NASDAQ market timers that he monitors remain stubbornly bearish on stocks, which is contrarian bullish. These sentiment readings represent a “wall of worry” for stocks to climb.

We can see a similar level of skepticism in the SP 500 e-mini Commitment of Traders (COT) report. The COT release is done on Friday, but the date of the data is Tuesday, which happened to be the day of a huge stock market rally. The lack of speculator short covering after such a powerful single day rally is another indication of a bullish “wall of worry” is forming.

Brett Steenbarger also observed a similar effect in the number of outstanding units of SPY, where investors have redeemed shares even as the market rallied, which indicates a low level of bullish conviction.

On the other hand, the market is getting seriously overbought. The NYSE McClellan Oscillator (NYMO) spike to over 100 on Friday, an overbought condition which suggests that the market is extremely stretched on a short-term basis. However, the historical evidence for this indicator is mixed. As the chart below shows, elevated levels of NYMO has seen mixed results in the last 10 years. The blue vertical lines show instances when NYMO has been overbought, but the market has either moved sideways or continued to advance, while the red lines show past cases when it has pulled back in the next few weeks.

My inner trader took an initial SPX long position on Friday, based on the assumption that we are about to experience a series of “good” overbought readings where the market grinds upwards. Should it pull back, downside risk is limited and stocks should be bought on weakness.

My inner investor has already been accumulating positions in the past several weeks, with an overweight in the resource extraction industries.

Disclosure: Long SPXL

A “good” overbought market?

Mid-week trading update: Last weekend, I pointed to the analysis by Simon Maierhofer, writing in Marketwatch, who highlighted a bullish “kickoff” signal in which the SPX rose for 1.5% or more for three consecutive days (see The market 2-step: 1 forward, 1 back). Such “kickoff” signals have seen higher stock prices 12 months later. So far, the market is roughly acting according to that script.

 

An overbought market

Two weeks after that “kickoff” signal, the market is overbought, which should be a cautionary sign for traders. However, such overbought conditions may be the start of a series of “good” overbought signals that accompany bullish thrusts. As the SPX approaches key resistance at about the 2000 level, the key test for the bulls is how stocks behave at these levels.

As the chart below of the SPX indicates, the market is overbought on the 5-day RSI. Moreover, TRIN closed at 0.41, which is another sign of an overbought reading. The vertical lines indicate instances in the past year when TRIN has fallen below 0.5. History shows that stock prices have either pulled back or moved sideways for 2-3 days.

This chart from IndexIndicators also shows that short-term breadth appears to be extended:

Further, Urban Carmel wrote about the overbought condition shown by the NYSE McClellan Oscillator, which closed above 90 yesterday.

His conclusion was similar to mine. Momentum is positive, but prepare for short-term weakness:

SPY should be weak the next day or longer. If it instead rises further, it will likely give those gains back in the next week or so. It would be normal for SPY to trade at least 1% below today’s close in the days ahead. A loss of 3% or more would not be unusual.

The upward momentum – both price and breadth – in SPY implies a “higher high” within the current rebound is likely still ahead.

Stocks are likely to either pull back or consolidate their gains in the next couple of days. My inner trader covered his small SPX short position today. He is in cash and waiting for a suitable pullback in order to get long.

Super Tuesday special: How President Trump could spark a market blow-off

Let me preface my remarks with two caveats. Firstly, I am politically agnostic and I don`t have a horse in the latest race for the American presidency. As a Canadian, I can`t vote in a US election. As well, it might be considered foolhardy to project what a politician might do based on his campaign promises, particularly during primary season.

Nevertheless, as Donald Trump has strengthened in the Republican primaries and he has become a serious contender, it is time to consider what a Trump Administration might do (much in the spirit of my last post How to trade the Brexit referendum).

Trumponomics revealed

There are some clues on what a President Trump might do. CNN recently asked, So what exactly is Donald Trump’s economic policy? These are summarized below, with likely equity market effects:

  1. Massive tariffs on China and Mexico: Bearish, the former would kill the global supply chain and the latter would be difficult without abrogating NAFTA.
  2. Keep the minimum wage, but not increase it: Neutral, as it represents the status quo.
  3. For a wealth tax, but also big tax cuts: Bullish, see analysis below.
  4. Get Wall Street pros to run the economy: Bullish, at least in the short-term.
  5. Repeal Obamacare: Uncertain as details are unavailable.

I would add that not detailed is the CNN article is the stated desire to leave Social Security and Medicare unscathed. The WSJ also featured a recent article on the Trump tax plan, which detailed the massive tax cuts that he has proposed:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.

Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist—though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.

Trump would offset those tax revenue losses with the following revenue offsets:

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

To summarize, the key points of the Trump tax plan are:

  • Massive income tax cuts
  • A flatter tax structure
  • One-time tax break for corporate repatriation of overseas profits

Trump 2017 = China 2009?

These measures are represent a shock-and-awe fiscal Keynesian stimulus of the American economy. Trump differs from FDR-style Keynesian stimulus as his plan does not involve direct government spending, but tax cuts. The net effect remains the same. Taken together, it is reminiscent of China’s shock-and-awe stimulus spending package in the wake of the Great Financial Crisis.

The Trump plan would also blow an enormous hole in the budget deficit and debt outlook. The Fiscal Times summarized the fiscal effects of the Trump plan this way:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has pegged the 10-year cost of Trump’s proposed tax cuts at $9.5 trillion — or $11.2 trillion if you add in interest on the debt that the tax cuts will generate. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation says that Trump’s tax plan would cost the Treasury revenues of $10 trillion over the same period, but they reached that conclusion by giving Trump credit for economic growth. Either way, Trump’s approach would send deficits and the long term accumulated debt through the roof.

Likely market reaction

Rather than recoil in horror at the spike in debt, let’s consider the likely market effects should such a plan get put into action:

  • Income tax cuts: Bullish for consumer spending and the economy.
  • Overseas corporate cash repatriation: Bullish for capital spending.
  • Deteriorating national debt outlook: Bearish for USD, but bullish for commodities and US exporters which have faced earnings headwinds from a strong exchange rate.
  • Rising tariffs: Bearish for stocks, but it depends on implementation.
When I put it all together, the Trump plan would be very equity friendly for the first couple of years, until the Fed puts the brakes on inflation by taking away the punch bowl. No doubt it will all end badly in a recession, but The Donald will throw America a huge party first.
Equity bulls should rejoice at such a prospect. They can turn bearish later.

How to trade the Brexit referendum

I have tried to refrain from comment on the Brexit referendum vote until the situation had settled down a bit. Now that the campaign is in full swing, it`s time to consider how the markets might react as we approach the June 23 vote.

CNBC recently summarized the debate this way:

  • First, the economy, and whether positives like free trade would exist outside of EU membership, and whether negatives like excess regulation would make a meaningful difference if removed.
  • Second, migration of workers, and whether this helps offset Britain’s poor demographics, or acts as an excess strain on the welfare system.
  • And third, sovereignty; is Britain ruled by the members of Parliament in Westminster elected last May by British voters, or by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

A probable roadmap

While I believe that the UK will ultimately vote to stay in the EU, there will many ups and downs to the debate. The addition of popular London mayor Boris Johnson to the Leave camp is undoubtedly providing a boost to the Leave vote.

The map below (via Ian Bremmer) shows the locations of battles in the last 4000 years and serves to underline the history of conflict and horrific carnage that the European Union was designed to avoid (see Lest we forget, or why you don`t understand Europe). The British are not as emotionally wedded to the idea of a united Europe as their Continental cousins by virtual of geography.

Here is the likely roadmap of how opinions and the markets are likely to behave. Watch for the Leave side to gain the lead initially as Briton are guided by their hearts and emotions. As time progresses, “Project Panic” will kick in, just as it did during the Scottish Referendum (via Business Insider):

While few may be swayed by the lightly amended membership terms, a plunging currency, tumbling share prices and fears for property values could drive enough Britons to opt at the last minute for the status quo rather than a leap into the unknown.

That was how the British political establishment managed by the skin of its teeth to hold the United Kingdom together in 2014, when Scottish voters tempted by the centuries-old dream of regaining independence from England ultimately chose safety.

It is also a plausible scenario for the EU vote, especially since a decision to leave would reopen the Scottish question.

Ordinary Brits tempted to give the unloved “Europe” a kicking may plump for stability to avoid economic uncertainty rather than risk financial and political turmoil.

I also agree with Antole Kaletsky that UK citizens will ultimately vote to stay because of the enormous economic costs to the UK economy because of the loss of jobs in the services sector:

The economic challenges of Brexit would be overwhelming. The Out campaign’s main economic argument – that Britain’s huge trade deficit is a secret weapon, because the EU would have more to lose than Britain from a breakdown in trade relations – is flatly wrong. Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules.

Margaret Thatcher was the first to realize that Britain’s specialization in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO.

Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements. To grant easier terms would immediately force matching concessions to Switzerland and Norway. Worse still, any special favors for Britain would set a precedent and tempt other lukewarm EU members to make exit threats and demand renegotiation.

How to trade the vote

In effect, we will see a high level of market and public opinion volatility between now and June. The three likely phases are:

  • Leave camp ascendant
  • Market panic
  • Last minute recovery for the Stay camp
A useful vehicle to trade this kind of volatility is the EWU (UK stock ETF) vs. Euro STOXX 50 (FEZ) pair. This long-short ETF pair is useful because it trades in USD and therefore incorporates currency effects. As the chart shows, the pair is at the top of a trading range, with EWU outperforming FEZ, which is reflective of the optimism that the UK will stay in the EU. This might be a useful place for traders to short EWU against a long position in FEZ.
As the Leave side gains in the opinion polls, watch for eurozone stocks (FEZ) to start outperforming UK stocks (EWU). If and when it gets to the bottom of the range, traders would be well advised to consider reversing their positions and buy EWU against a short position in FEZ.
For readers who want to follow along at home, use this link for real-time updates.
Disclosure: No positions

The market bottom 2-step: 1 forward, 1 back

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 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 seeks to answer the question, “Is the trend getting better (bullish) or worse (bearish)?” 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 this model has shown turnover rates of about 200% per month.

The signals of each model are as follows:

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

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

The reversals continue

In the last few weeks, I have been highlighting the improving macro-economic and fundamental backdrop, while voicing concerns over the technical damage suffered by the stock market. I had concluded that the market was undergoing a W-shaped choppy correction.

Last week brought a number of reversals. The macro and fundamental picture suffered a number of setbacks, which creates a number of longer term concerns. On the other hand, a review of the technical conditions showed considerable improvement.

Macro wobbles

The macro reversals came mainly from signs of decelerating economic growth momentum. One major concern came from the Q4 GDP revision report released Friday. Q4 GDP growth was revised upward from 0.7% to 1.0%, but the report was marred by indications of building inventory and a slight slowdown in real consumer spending.
 

 
The report was negative enough that the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow estimate of Q1 GDP growth slid from 2.5% to 2.1% because of the effects of the inventory buildup.
 

 
New Deal democrat, who monitors real-time economic releases, noted that a second week of growth deterioration:

Several recent reversals intensified this week. Real M1 has decelerated to the point where it is barely positive. Withheld taxes also decelerated even further to less than +1% YoY, suggesting payrolls have turned negative. On the other hand, both rail carloads and steel production YoY have turned positive or almost positive, strongly suggesting they have bottomed.

Among long leading indicators, interest rates for corporate bonds are neutral, while treasuries, real estate loans, mortgage applications, Real M2, and mortgage rates are positive. In fact, mortgage rates and applications are now strongly positive. Real M1 has decelerated to the point of being only slightly positive.

Among short leading indicators, the interest rate spread between corporates and treasuries remains very negative, although it has improved in recent weeks. Jobless claims remain positive. Oil and gas prices, and usage, remain very positive. Commodities, while negative, appear “less worse” on a YoY basis. The US$ as against major currencies has turned neutral while on a broad basis it remains quite negative.

Among coincident indicators, bank rates, staffing and shipping remain negative, Consumer spending was positive although Gallup was down slightly this week. The big news here is that withholding taxes have deteriorated badly, suggesting that payrolls, or at least hours worked, have turned negative. On the other hand, steel production has almost turned positive, and rail transport actually positive on a YoY basis, suggesting these have bottomed.

The bifurcation of decent consumer economy, poor industrial economy (at least that portion tied to commodity extraction and exports) that began one year ago, looks to be changing. Negatives have spread to withholding taxes, and money supply has weakened. But commodity production and transportation look like they have turned positive.

Rising inflation = More hawkish Fed

Another ominous sign for equities came from the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) report. Core PCE (ex-food and energy) and Trimmed Mean PCE jumped up to 1.7% and 1.9% respectively, which are getting very close to the Fed’s 2% inflation target. Core PCE is the Fed`s favorite measure of inflation and this latest data release points to rising inflationary pressures, which is supportive of the case for a faster pace of interest rate hikes.
 

EPS growth uncertainty continues
 
In past cycles, the negative effects of Federal Reserve induced rate increases have been offset by the positive effects of better earnings growth. While that may still be true, the short-term earnings growth outlook remains uncertain.

My inner investor got very excited last week when forward 12-month EPS rose and he eagerly awaited this week’s forward EPS update for confirmation that the increase in consensus earnings estimates was not a data blip. Alas, John Butters of Factset reported that forward EPS fall back in the latest week. The Street’s outlook for earnings growth remains wobbly.
 

 
A recent research note by UBS strategist Julian Emanuel also highlighted a trend of rising EPS estimate volatility, which indicates rising uncertainty over the earnings outlook (via Business Insider):
 

 
Until we see a consistent pattern of rising forward EPS, stocks will find it difficult to stage a sustainable advance.
 

Technical healing

While these indications of macro and fundamental setbacks represent bad news for the bulls, they have been offset by signs of healing on the technical front. First, the stock market rally last week saw the SPX stage an upside breakout through resistance and its 50 day moving average (dma). Equally encouraging were signs of global technical healing. Both the FTSE 100, which “should” be struggling with uncertainty over the upcoming Brexit referendum, and the cyclically sensitive industrial metals also rose to regain their 50 dma levels.
 

 
We are also seeing sporadic signs of technical healing in Asia as well. Even though the Shanghai Composite struggled, the stock indices of a couple of China`s major Asian trading partners, namely Taiwan and the cyclically sensitive South Korea, rallied above their 50 dma levels.
 

 
As a consequence of these improvements in the technical tone of the markets, the Trend Model’s readings has been upgraded from risk-off to neutral. As the trading model keys off changes in the direction of the Trend Model, it has changed from bearish to bullish.

A market bottom next Wednesday?

Looking to the week ahead, the chart from IndexIndicators shows that the stock market is overbought after the recent strong advance. However, there are signs that this represents a “good” overbought condition where the market remains overbought as it rallies, much like what occurred when the market rose off the September 2015 bottom.
 

 
I wrote last week that the market had until last Friday to flash a Zweig Breadth Thrust buy signal (see Mind the gaps), which it failed to do so. However, Simon Maierhofer, writing in Marketwatch, alerted us last week to an equally bullish “kickoff” signal, in which the SPX rose for 1.5% or more for three consecutive days. He pointed out that such conditions have represented a bullish impulse in the past where stocks were substantially higher a year later.
 

 
I went back to 1950 and studied past “kickoffs” where the SPX rose for three consecutive sessions of 1.5% or more. I found 11 episodes (other than the most current) and the results are summarized in the chart below. Indeed, stock prices were typically higher one, two and three months later, but the market tended to pull back about 10 days after the “kickoff” date. Even though the index was higher 82% of the time after three months, with a median return of 4.2%, the median maximum loss during that period was 6.9%, indicating heightened volatility during past “kickoff” episodes.
 

 
As returns seem to dip after 10 days, I paid particular attention to the post-“kickoff” return period of between 5 and 15 day. The top panel of the chart below shows that returns were volatile, but if we focus on the % positive metric shown in the bottom panel, the market tended to bottom out 10 days after kickoff.
 

 
With the caveat that the “kickoff” study has a very small sample size, that conclusion makes sense in the current circumstances. As the chart below shows, the SPX staged an upside breakout through resistance and its 50 dma, which are intermediate term bullish. On the other hand, market conditions are overbought and the 5-day RSI has flashed a negative divergence, which is bearish from a short-term trading perspective. If history were to repeat itself, the market is likely to pull back after its breakout and bottom out next week on Wednesday March 2, or which represents 10 trading days after the “kickoff” date of February 17, 2016.
 

 
My inner investor is still constructive on stocks and he remains in accumulation mode. He is casting his lot with the “smart money” insiders, who are still doing more buying than selling (via Barron’s).
 

 
My inner trader missed the trading model signal change from bearish to bullish because I conducted this review on the weekend after the market closed. He has a small SPX short position, but he expects to cover his short next week and reverse to the long side.
 
Disclosure: Long SPXU