5/11/2012: Lehman Bros & Irish ISEQ - II

And a bit more on indices dynamics:

Some interesting longer term trends from the major indices and VIX revealing the underlying structure of the Irish and the euro area crises. Note: data covers period through September 2012.

Starting from the top, here are indices of major stock prices, normalized back to February 2005 for comparative purposes. Relative to the peak, currently, CAC40 stands at around -41.9%, while FTSE MIB is at -62.5%, FTSE Eurotop 100 at -31.7%, FTSE ALL Shares at -11.22%, DAX at -8.41%, S&P500 at -6.15% and IBEX35 at -48.5%. Meanwhile, 'special' Ireland's ISEQ is at -66.9%.

Chart Index 1.0 and Index 1.1.

Clearly, Ireland is the poorest performer in the class.

Now, it is worth noting that Ireland's stock market is also 'distinguished' by a very 'special' characteristic of being the riskiest of all markets compared, with STDev of returns at 36.45 (on normalized index). Compared to the French market (STDev=22.34 for the period from the start of 2005 through today), Italian market (STDev = 28.95), FTSE Eurotop 100 (STDev = 18.90), FTSE All Shares (STDev = 13.70), German DAX (STDev = 23.05), S&P500 (STDev =14.55) and Spanish market (IBEX STDev = 23.70), Ireland is a risky gamble. Given that the direction of this bet, in the case of Ireland has been down from May 2007, virtually uninterrupted, the proposition of 'patriotic investment' in Ireland's stocks is an extremely risky gamble.

Normalizing the indices at their peak values (set peak at 100), chart below clearly shows the constant, persistent underperformance of the ISEQ.

Chart Index2.0

Now, let's take a look at the core driver of global fundamentals: risk aversion as reflected in VIX index. In general, rising VIX signals rising risk aversion and should be associated with falling stock valuations. Once again, for comparative reasons, we use indexed series of weekly returns for 1999-September 2012. Up until the crisis, Irish stock prices behaved broadly in line with the same relationship to VIX that holds for all other major indices. Chart below illustrates this for FTSE Eurotop 100, but the same holds for other major indices. VIX up, risk-aversion up, stock indices, including ISEQ, down.

Chart VIX1.1

Around Q1 2009 something changed. ISEQ lost any connection with 'reality' of the global markets and acquired life of its own. Or rather - a zombie life of it own. No matter what the global appetite for risk was doing, Irish stocks did not have much of a link with global investment fundamentals.

Another interesting point of the above chart is that Lehman Brothers were not a trigger for Irish crisis (as many of us have been saying for ages, despite the Government's continued assertions to the contrary). Irish market peaked in the week of May 21st, 2007, Lehman Brothers folded on September 15th, 2008, with most of the impact in terms of our indices occurring at September 15th-October 6, 2008, some 16 months after Irish markets began crashing. Prior to Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, ISEQ dropped from a peak of 147.3 to 61.6, while following the Lehman Brothers and until the global stock market trough of March 2, 2009, ISEQ fell to roughly 31.9 reading. So even in theory, Lehman bankruptcy could have accounted for no more than 29.7 point drop on the normalized ISEQ, while pre-Lehman drivers collapsed ISEQ by 85.7 points. 

More revealingly, ISEQ steep sell-offs through out the entire crisis have led, not followed, sell-offs in major indices. In other words, if Lehman caused the global market meltdown, then ISEQ 'caused' Lehman bankruptcy. Which, of course, is absurd.

There are many other stories that can be told looking at the Irish Stock Exchange performance, especially once higher moments to returns distribution are factored in, but I shall leave it to MSc students to explore.

5/11/2012: Lehman Bros & Irish ISEQ

Here's an interesting little factoid. The theory - usually advanced by the Irish Government - goes that Lehman Brothers bankruptcy has been a major driver of the Irish crisis. I have disputed this for ages now and more and more evidence turns up contrary to that when more and more data is considered.

Now, here's a new bit.

Suppose Lehman Bros did contribute significantly to the Irish crisis gravity. In that case, given Lehman Brothers bankruptcy contributed adversely to the global markets, we can expect a dramatic contagion from the global markets panic to Irish markets. One way to gauge this is to look at the changes in correlations between the measure of overall 'panic' in the international markets and the behaviour of the returns to Irish stock market indices.

Let's take ISEQ index for Irish markets and VIX for a measure of the panic sentiment in the global markets. Let's take weekly returns in ISEQ and correlate them to weekly changes in VIX. I use log-differencing in that exercise and 52 weeks rolling correlations.

What should we expect to see? If the 'Lehmans caused Irish crisis or worsened it' theory holds, we should expect correlation between ISEQ weekly returns and changes in weekly VIX readings to be negative (VIX rising during the crisis signals rising risk aversion in the markets). For Irish markets to be influenced significantly, or differently from other markets around the world, such negative correlations should be larger in absolute value than for other countries.

What do we see? Here is a table of averages:

Contrary to the hypothesis of 'Lehmans caused Irish crisis', we see that throughout the period of the crisis, ISEQ suffered shallower, not deeper, spillover from global risk aversion to equity valuations, save for Spanish IBEX index. In other words, evidence suggests that Irish 'disease', like Spanish 'disease' was driven more by idiosyncratic - own market-specific - factors rather than by global panic.

Here's the chart, showing just how consistently closer to zero ISEQ correlation to VIX was during the post-Lehman panic period:

And here is a chart showing skew in the distribution of weekly returns which shows that during the crisis, Ireland's ISEQ suffered less from global markets 'bad news' spillovers (at the point of immediate global markets panics, such as Lehmans episode), but exhibited  a much worse negative skew than other peers in the period from June 2010 through Q1 2012.

14/09/2011: Clueless from the world of finance

I had to get this riddle solved, folks: In the pic below, spot 1,000,023 clueless doorknobs


Answer:

Clueless Number 1: Erin Callan
Clueless numbers 2-15: 14 Goldman Sachs analysts who labored hard to produce that recommendation
Clueless number 16-23: 8-strong crew on CNBC who decided to carry this drivel unchallenged
Clueless numbers 24-1,000,023 (or so): all those who rushed out to buy Lehman's shares on GS recommendation

(I obviously made the numbers up, but, hey... in the world full of clueless analysts this gets one paid loads of money, apparently. Just ask GS)

18/07/2011: Some thoughts on Irish stocks bubble

There is a classic defined relationship between the various stages of bubble formation and markets responses, as illustrated in the chart from (source here) below.

Of course, there is an argument to be made that ‘normal’ bubbles are driven by either information asymmetries or behavioural ‘exuberance’ or both, and are, therefore, significant but temporary departures from the steady state ‘mean’ growth trend. The return to the mean, thus implies the end of the correction phase, as also shown in the chart below.


Of course, one can make an argument that what we have experienced in the case of Ireland is more than a simple bubble, but a structural break underwritten by underlying fundamentals, such as lower permanent rate of growth.

Irish GDP grew 8.82% cumulative in the period 2003-2010 in terms of constant prices or annualized rate of growth of 1.215%. In per capita terms current prices it grew by 14.85% cumulatively and at an annualized rate of 1.998%. Taken from these rates, from 2003 on through today, the average expected value of IFIN should be around 8,898 (mid-point between 8,659 and 9,139 implied by above rates from the ‘Smart Money’ period mid-point valuation). Note that, crucially, the new mean post-bubble bursting should be at least at or above the ‘Smart Money’ end-of-period valuations.

This is certainly not the case with Irish financials as shown in figure below:
Note that three forecasts (my own calculations, so treat as indicative, rather than absolute) provided assume that the average annual growth rate of 1.998% (upper forecast from the starting point at 2003-2004 average), mean forecast (based on 1.215% annualized average growth, starting from 2003-2004 average) and lower forecast (based on 1.215% annualized growth, starting from 2000-2003 average). All three are well above the post-Despair peak.

What about other signs of a classic bubble?
In the run up to the Public Money phase, it is clear that IFIN shows a number of sell-offs and shallow bear traps, but these can be linked to higher overall volatility of the index.

For any period we can take, IFIN exhibits more volatility than either S&P or FTSE bank shares sub-indices. Historically, across indices (to assure comparable scale), IFIN standard deviation stands at 65.40 against S&P’s BIX at 36.84 and FTSE A350 Banks at 32.70. January 2003 through June 2006, IFIN standard deviation was 25.16 against that for BIX of 10.29 and FTSE A350B at 12.07. For the run up to the crisis period between June 2006 and June 2007, IFIN standard deviation was 15.66 against S&P’s BIX of 4.64 and FTSE A350B of 5.22. Lastly, during the crisis – from July 2007 through today, IFIN standard deviation was 56.40 against 28.07 for S&P BIX and 27.83 for FTSE A350B.

To see the relationship, or the lack there of between the volatilities, consider the following chart.
Even from the simple consideration of the rates of change, week on week, IFIN has the lowest correlation with the S&P Banking BIX index – with relatively low explanatory power. Things are even worse if we are to look at the downside risks. Chart below plots downside weekly movements for the three indices that correspond to market declines of 2% or more week-on-week. Again, you can see that both before and during the crisis, there is little relationship between downside risk to Irish financials and to S&P measure.
And the same story is formally confirmed by the Chart below which plots the pair-wise relationships between S&P BIX and FTSE A350 and IFIN.
So overall, IFIN data strongly suggests that we are not in a “normal” financial bubble scenario.

But what about that claim that Lehman's Bros collapse had influence on our banks shares? Recall, Lehman was in trouble since Spring 2008 and went to the wall on September 15, 2008. Also recall that the issues started with Bear Sterns troubles in March 2008 and JPMorgan Chase completed its acquisition of Bear Stearns on May 30, 2008. So let's take the data subset on extreme downward volatility for the period from May 2008 through September 2009. If Lehmans and/or Bear had much of an effect on Irish financials we should expect either one of the following two or both to hold:

1. Correlation between IFIN and S&P BIX to be large and significant
2. Correlation between IFIN and BIX to be larger in the period considered than over the history from 2003 through today.

Overall, evidence suggests that actually the opposite of both (1) and (2) above holds. In fact, based on data for weekly market declines greater than 2% (relatively significant events, but not really too dramatic by far), the period between Bear & Lehman collapse and the next 12 months, Irish financials were less impacted by the US financial shares movements than in the period of 2003-present overall. The impact of Lehmans & Bear on UK financials was stronger, although not dramatically strong, however.