3/5/21: Margin Debt: Things are FOMOing up...

 Debt, debt and more FOMO...

Source: topdowncharts.com and my annotations

Ratio of leveraged longs to shorts is at around 3.5, which is 2014-2019 average of around 2.2. Bad news (common signal of upcoming correction or sell-off). Basically, we are witnessing a FOMO-fueled chase of every-rising hype and risk appetite. Meanwhile, margin debt is up 70% y/y in March 2021, although from low base back in March 2020, now back to levels of growth comparable only to pre-dot.com crash in 1999-2000. Adjusting for market cap - some say this is advisable, though I can't see why moderating one boom-craze indicator with another boom-craze indicator is any better - things are more moderate. 

My read-out: we are seeing margin debt acceleration that is now outpacing the S&P500 acceleration, even with all the rosy earnings projections being factored in. This isn't 'fundamentals'. It is behavioral. And as such, it is a dry powder keg sitting right next to a campfire. 

17/9/20: Exploding errors: COVID19 and VUCA world of economic growth forecasts

 

Just as I covered the latest changes in Eurozone growth indicators (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/09/17920-eurocoin-leading-growth-indicator.html), it is worth noting the absolutely massive explosion in forecast errors triggered by the VUCA environment around COVID19 pandemic.

My past and current students know that I am a big fan of looking at risk analysis frameworks from the point of view of their incompleteness, as they exclude environments of deeper uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in which we live in the real world. Well, here is a good illustration:

You can see an absolute explosion in the error term for growth forecasts vs actual outrun in the three quarters of 2020 so far. The errors are off-the-scale compared to what we witnessed in prior recessions/crises. 

This highlights the fact that during periods of elevated deeper uncertainty, any and all forecasting models run into the technical problem of risk (probabilities and impact assessments) not being representative of the true underlying environment with which we are forced to work.  

17/9/20: Stonks are Getting Balmier than in the Dot.Com Heat

Via Liz Ann Sonders @LizAnnSonders of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. a neat chart summarizing the madness of the King Market these days:

Yeah, right: PE ratio is heading for dot.com madness levels, PEG ratio (price earnings to growth ratio or growth-adjusted PE ratio) is now vastly above the dot.com era peak, and EPS is closer to the Global Financial Crisis era lows. 

What can possibly go wrong, Robinhooders, when a mafia don gifts you some chips to wager at his casino?

25/7/20: Markets and COVID19: Unwinding Restrictions

My column for Manning Financial on the direction of the markets in the period of COVID19 restrictions unwinding: https://cfc.ie/2020/07/10/where-to-mr-market/.

24/7/20: Bonds v Stocks: Of Yields, Investors and Large Predators

Corporates are reeling from the COVID19 pandemic impacts, yet stocks are severely overpriced by all possible corporate finance metrics. Until, that is, one looks at bonds.

Over the 3 months through June 2020, average 10 year U.S. Treasury yield has been 0.69 percent. Over the same period, average S&P500 dividend yield was 2.02 percent. The gap between the two is 1.33 percentage points, which (with exception of March-May average gap of 1.42 points) is the highest in history of the series (from 1962 on).

Given that today's Treasuries are carrying higher liquidity risk (declining demand outside the official / Fed demand channel) and higher roll-over risks (opportunity cost of buying Ts today compared to the future), the real (relative) bubble in financial markets todays is in fixed income. Of course, in absolute returns terms, long-term investment in either bonds or equities today is equivalent to a choice of being maimed by a T-Rex or being mangled by a grizzly. Take your pick.

8/6/20: 30 years of Financial Markets Manipulation

Students in my course Applied Investment and Trading in TCD would be familiar with the market impact of the differential bid-ask spreads in intraday trading. For those who might have forgotten, and those who did not take my course, here is the reminder: early in the day (at and around market opening times), spreads are wide and depths of the market are thin (liquidity is low); late in the trading day (closer to market close), spreads are narrow and depths are thick (liquidity is higher). Hence, a trading order placed near market open times tends to have stronger impact by moving the securities prices more; in contrast, an equally-sized order placed near market close will have lower impact.

Now, you will also remember that, in general, investment returns arise from two sources: 

1. Round-trip trading gains that arise from buying a security at P(1) and selling it one period later at P(2), net of costs of buy and sell orders execution; and 
2. Mark-to-market capital gains that arise from changes in the market-quoted price for security between times P(1) and P(2+).

The long-running 'Strategy' used by some institutional investors is, therefore as follows: 

Here is the illustration of the 'Strategy' via Bruce Knuteson paper "Celebrating Three Decades of Worldwide Stock Market Manipulation", available here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.01708.pdf.

• Step 1: Accumulate a large long portfolio of assets;
• Step 2: At the start of the day, buy some more assets dominating your portfolio at P(1) - generating larger impact of your buy orders, even if you are carrying a larger cost adverse to your trade;
• Step 3: At the end of the day, sell at P(2) - generating lower impact from your sell orders, again carrying the cost.

On a daily basis, you generate losses in trading account, as you are paying higher costs of buy and sell orders (due to buy-sell asymmetry and intraday bid-ask spreads differences), but you are also generating positive impact of buy trades, net of sell trades, so you are triggering positive mark-to-market gains on your original portfolio at the start of the day.

Knuteson shows that, over the last 30 years, overnight returns in the markets vastly outstrip intraday returns. 

Per author, "The obvious, mechanical explanation of the highly suspicious return patterns shown in Figures 2 and 3 is someone trading in a way that pushes prices up before or at market open, thus causing the blue curve, and then trading in a way that pushes prices down between market open (not including market open) and market close (including market close), thus causing the green curve. The consistency with which this is done points to the actions of a few quantitative trading firms rather than

the uncoordinated, manual trading of millions of people."

Sounds bad? It is. Again, per Knuteson: "The tens of trillions of dollars your use of the Strategy has created out of thin air have mostly gone to the already-wealthy: 

• Company executives and existing shareholders benefi tting directly from rising stock prices; 
• Owners of private companies and other assets, including real estate, whose values tend to rise and fall with the stock market; and 
• Those in the financial industry and elsewhere with opportunities to privatize the gains and socialize the losses."

These gains to capital over the last three decades have contributed directly and signi ficantly to the current level of wealth inequality in the United States and elsewhere. As a general matter, widespread mispricing leads to misallocation of capital and human effort, and widespread inequality negatively a effects our social structure and the perceived social contract."

6/5/20: S&P500 and Fundamentals: What should matter, doesn't

S&P500 and earnings per share: what should matter, doesn't

We are now in extreme territory of the markets ignoring basic corporate fundamentals.

6/5/20: 1Q 2020 US GDP:

From Factset: "The decrease in first-quarter real GDP was largely driven by the 7.6% decline in consumer spending, which subtracted 5.3% from the total GDP number. Investment was also a drag on growth, while an improvement in the trade deficit partially offset these negatives. We may see downward revisions to these numbers with the next two data revisions, and second-quarter growth is expected to be far worse. Analysts surveyed by FactSet are currently expecting a 29.9% contraction in Q2."

Yeeks!

6/5/20: S&P500 Earnings and Revenues Growth 1Q 2020

With early effects of COVID19 pandemic in:

Both charts via Factset.

21/3/20: Updated: Markets Impact of #Covid19

Updated markets impact: DJIA

	% change on close, down		% change on close, up
19/10/1987	-22.61%	13/10/2008	11.08%
16/03/2020	-12.93%	28/10/2008	10.88%
12/03/2020	-9.99%	21/10/1987	10.15%
26/10/1987	-8.04%	13/03/2020	9.36%
15/10/2008	-7.87%	23/03/2009	6.84%
09/03/2020	-7.79%	13/11/2008	6.67%
01/12/2008	-7.70%	21/11/2008	6.54%
09/10/2008	-7.33%	24/07/2002	6.35%
27/10/1997	-7.18%	20/10/1987	5.88%
17/09/2001	-7.13%	10/03/2009	5.80%
29/09/2008	-6.98%	29/07/2002	5.41%
13/10/1989	-6.91%	17/03/2020	5.20%
08/01/1988	-6.85%	02/03/2020	5.09%
31/08/1998	-6.37%	26/12/2018	4.98%
18/03/2020	-6.30%	08/09/1998	4.98%
11/03/2020	-5.86%	29/10/1987	4.96%
22/10/2008	-5.69%	24/11/2008	4.93%
14/04/2000	-5.66%	16/03/2000	4.93%
20/11/2008	-5.56%	10/03/2020	4.89%
08/08/2011	-5.55%	15/10/2002	4.80%
07/10/2008	-5.11%	28/10/1997	4.71%
19/11/2008	-5.07%	30/09/2008	4.68%
05/11/2008	-5.05%	16/10/2008	4.68%
06/11/2008	-4.85%	20/10/2008	4.67%
14/04/1988	-4.82%	01/10/2002	4.57%
12/11/2008	-4.73%	17/01/1991	4.57%
19/07/2002	-4.64%	04/03/2020	4.53%
10/08/2011	-4.62%	24/09/2001	4.47%
10/02/2009	-4.62%	30/11/2011	4.24%
11/09/1986	-4.61%	05/04/2001	4.23%
05/02/2018	-4.60%	11/10/2002	4.20%
16/10/1987	-4.60%	16/12/2008	4.20%
20/03/2020	-4.55%	15/10/1998	4.15%
27/02/2020	-4.42%	09/08/2011	3.98%
15/09/2008	-4.42%	26/08/2015	3.95%
20/09/2001	-4.37%	11/08/2011	3.95%
04/08/2011	-4.31%	04/01/1988	3.94%
02/03/2009	-4.24%	18/04/2001	3.91%
27/08/1998	-4.19%	10/05/2010	3.90%
08/02/2018	-4.15%	18/09/2008	3.86%
03/09/2002	-4.10%	01/09/1998	3.82%
12/03/2001	-4.10%	31/05/1988	3.82%
05/03/2009	-4.09%	17/03/2003	3.59%
17/09/2008	-4.06%	05/07/2002	3.58%
30/11/1987	-4.03%	13/03/2003	3.57%
20/01/2009	-4.01%	11/03/2008	3.55%
15/11/1991	-3.93%	14/12/1987	3.53%
03/12/1987	-3.92%	18/03/2008	3.51%
14/11/2008	-3.82%	21/01/2009	3.51%
22/10/1987	-3.82%	08/12/2008	3.46%

20/3/20: Euromoney on Risk Landscape Changes

Euromoney on changing risk landscape for global sovereigns: https://www.euromoney.com/article/b1ktp0wqc12jyb/ecr-risk-experts-contemplate-another-financial-crisis. With a comment from myself.

18/3/20: Banks, The Fed and Money Markets Woes

My article for the International Banker on pre-Covid monetary policy bottlenecks in the US markets is out and available here: https://internationalbanker.com/finance/banks-the-fed-and-money-markets-woes/

25/2/2020: No, 2019-nCov did not push forward PE ratios to 2002 levels

Markets are having a conniption these days and coronavirus is all the rage in the news flow.  Here is the 5 days chart for the major indices:

And it sure does look like a massive selloff.

Still, hysteria aside, no one is considering the simple fact: the markets have been so irrationally priced for months now, that even with the earnings being superficially inflated on per share basis by the years of rampant buybacks and non-GAAP artistry, the PE ratios are screaming 'bubble' from any angle you look at them.

Here is the Factset latest 20 years comparative chart for forward PEs:

You really don't need a PhD in Balck Swannery Studies to get the idea: we are trending at the levels last seen in 1H 2002. Every sector, save for energy and healthcare, is now in above 20 year average territory.  Factset folks say it as it is: "One year prior (February 20, 2019), the forward 12-month P/E ratio was 16.2. Over the following 12 months (February 20, 2019 to February 19, 2020), the price of the S&P 500 increased by 21.6%, while the forward 12-month EPS estimate increased by 4.1%. Thus, the increase in the “P” has been the main driver of the increase in the P/E ratio over the past 12 months."

So, about that 'Dow is 5.8% down in just five days' panic: the real Black Swan is that it takes a coronavirus to point to the absurdity of our markets expectations.

14/2/20: Pandemics, Panics and the Markets

In my recent article for The Currency I wrote about the expected market effects of the 2019-nCov coronavirus outbreak: https://www.thecurrency.news/articles/8490/constantin-gurdgiev-pandemics-panics-and-the-markets.

While past pandemics are not a direct nor linear indicators of the future expected performance, the logic and the dynamics of the past events suggest that while the front end short term effects of pandemics on the economies and the markets can be significant, over time, rebounds post-pandemics tend to fully offset short run negative impacts.

Key conclusions from the article are:

• "...The market appears to worry little about public health risks, after their impact becomes more visible, although the onset of a pandemic can be associated with elevated markets volatility. This volatility is higher the faster the evolution of the health scare, but so is the market rebound from each crisis lows."
• "This is not say that investors have little to worry about in today’s markets. We are still trading in the heavily over-bought market, and concerns about global growth are not getting much of a reprieve from the newsflows. The good news is, to date, the latest global health crisis does not seem to be a trigger for a major and sustained sell off. The bad news is, we are yet to see its full impact."

21/1/20: Investor Fear and Uncertainty in Cryptocurrencies

Our paper on behavioral biases in cryptocurrencies trading is now published by the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance volume 25, 2020:

We cover investor sentiment effects on pricing processes of 10 largest (by market capitalization) crypto-currencies, showing direct but non-linear impact of herding and anchoring biases in investor behavior. We also show that these biases are themselves anchored to the specific trends/direction of price movements. Our results provide direct links between investors' sentiment toward:

1. Overall risky assets investment markets,
2. Cryptocurrencies investment markets, and
3. Macroeconomic conditions,

and market price dynamics for crypto-assets. We also show direct evidence that both markets uncertainty and investor fear sentiment drive price processes for crypto-assets.

15/1/20: What Trade Deal Phase 1/N Says About the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse

Phase 1 of N of the "Greatest Trade Deal" that is "easiest to achieve' by the 'stablest Genius' is hitting the newsflows today. Which brings us to two posts worth reading on the subject:

Post 1 via Global Macro Monitor: https://global-macro-monitor.com/2020/01/15/phase-1-of-potemkin-trade-deal-signed-sealed-and-yet-to-deliver/ is as always (from that source) excellent. Key takeaways are:

• "We never believed for one moment that China would cave on any of the big issues, such as restructuring its economy and any deal would be just some token political salad dressing for the 2020 election."
• "Moreover, much of the deal depends on whether the Chinese will abide by Soviet-style import quotas," or in more common parlance: limits on imports of goods into the country, which is is 'command and control' economics of central planning.
• "We are thankful, however,  the economic hostilities have momentarily ratcheted down but the game is hardly over," with tariffs and trade restrictions/suppression being the "new paranormal".
• "Seriously, after more than two years of negotiations, they couldn’t even agree on dog and cat food imports?"

Post 2 via Market Watch: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/phase-one-trade-deal-wont-end-the-uncertainty-in-markets-hsbc-strategist-says-2020-01-15. Key takeaways:

• "The [trade] environment remains very much in flux and a source of concern and challenge for investors".

My takeaways from Phase 1/N thingy: we are in a VUCA world. The current U.S. Presidential Administration is an automated plant for production of uncertainty and ambiguity, while the world economy is mired in unresolvable (see WTO's Appellate Body trials & tribulations) complexity. Beyond the White House, political cycle in the U.S. is driving even more uncertainty and more ambiguity into the system. The Four Horse(wo)men of the Apocalypse in charge today are, in order of their power to shift the geopolitical and macroeconomic risk balance, Xi, DNC leadership, Putin and Trump. None of them are, by definition, benign. 

The trade deal so far shows that Xi holds momentum over Trump. Putin's shake up of the Russian Cabinet today shows that he is positioning for some change in internal power balances into 2020, and this is likely to have some serious (unknown to-date) implications geopolitically. Putin's meeting with Angela Merkel earlier this week is a harbinger of a policy pivot to come for the EU and Russia and Lavrov's yesterday's statement about weaponization of the U.S. dollar and the need for de-dollarization of the global economy seems to be in line with the Russo-German New Alignment (both countries are interested in shifting more and more trade and investment outside the net of the U.S. sanctions raised against a number of countries, including Iran and Russia).

DNC leadership will hold the cards to 2020 Presidential Election in the U.S. My belief is that it currently has a 75:25 split on Biden vs Warren, with selection of the former yielding a 50:50 chance of a Trump 2.0 Administration, and selection of the latter yielding a 35:65 chance in favour of Warren. The electoral campaigning climate is so toxic right now, we have this take on the latest Presidential debate: https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1217431488439967744?s=20. Meanwhile, debate is being stifled already by the security agencies 'warnings' about Russian 'interference' via critical analysis of the candidates.

Mr. Trump has his Twitter Machine to rely upon in wrecking havoc, that, plus the pliant Pentagon Hawks, always ready to bomb something anywhere around the world. While that power is awesome in its destructiveness vis-a-vis smaller nations, it is tertiary to the political, geopolitical and economic powers of the other three Horse(wo)men, unless Mr. Trump gets VUCAed into a new war.

BoJo's UK as well as Japan, Canada, Australia et al, can just sit back and watch how the world will roll with the Four punchers. The only player that has a chance to dance closely with at least some of the geopolitical VUCA leaders is the EU (read: France and Germany, really). 

15/1/20: S&P500 Historical Performance

Via BAML and @tracyalloway, a chart plotting the distribution of annual returns on S&P500, 1872-2019:

The stylised nature of this plot allows us to see the right-skew in the distribution, across all 

'bins', especially for the last decade.

7/1/20: Tax cuts, trade and growth: The Trumponomics Effect

My article on U.S. economy and the implied risks to investors for Manning Financial and Cathedral:
https://cfc.ie/2019/12/10/tax-cuts-trade-and-growth-the-trumponomics-effect/.

#USEconomy #Economics #Markets #USgrowth #GlobalGrowth #GlobalEconomy #SecularStagnation @cathedrlfinance @sheehymanning 

7/1/20: Euromoney on 2020 Risk Outlook for the Eurozone

Euromoney on Eurozone risks into 2020, with some comments from me: https://www.euromoney.com/article/b1js9nd289vtm9/country-risk-2020-vision-brings-the-eurozones-risks-into-focus. 

7/1/20: BRIC Services PMIs 4Q 2019

BRIC Services PMIs have been a mixed bag in 4Q 2019, beating overall Global Services PMI, but showing similar weaknesses and renewed volatility.

Brazil Services PMI slipped  in 4Q 2019, falling from 51.8 in 3Q 2019 to 51.0. Statistically, this level of activity is consistent with zero growth conditions. In the last four quarters, Brazil's services sector activity ranged between a high of 52.3 and a low of 48.6, showing lack of sustained growth momentum in the sector.

Russia Services sector posted a surprising, and contrary to Manufacturing, robust rise from 52.0 in 3Q 2019 to 54.8 in 4Q 2019, reaching the highest level in three quarters. Statistically, the index has been in an expansion territory in every quarter starting with 2Q 2016. 4Q 2019 almost tied for the highest reading in 2019 overall, with 1Q 2019 marginally higher at 54.9. For 2019 overall, Services PMI averaged 53.3, which is below 2018 average of 54.6 with the difference being statistically significant.

China Services PMI ended 4Q 2019 at 52.4 quarter average, up on 51.7 in 3Q 2019. Nonetheless, 4Q 2019 reading was the second weakest in 8 consecutive quarters. The level of 4Q 2019 activity, however, was statistically above the 50.0 zero growth line. In 2019, China Services PMI averaged 52.5 - a slight deterioration on 53.1 average for 2018, signalling slower growth in the sector last year compared to 2018.

India Services PMI averaged 51.7 in 4Q 2019, statistically identical to 51.6 in 3Q 2019. Over the last 4 quarters, the index averaged 51.5, which is effectively identical to 51.6 average for 2018 as a whole. Both readings are barely above the statistical upper bound for 50.0 line, suggesting weak growth conditions, overall.

As the chart above indicates, BRIC Services PMI - based on global GDP weightings for BRIC countries - was indistinguishable from the Global Services PMI. Both averaged 52.2 in 2019, with BRIC services index slipping from 52.6 in 2018 and Global services index falling from 53.8 in 2018. On a quarterly basis, BRIC services PMI averaged 52.3 in 4Q 2019, compared to 51.7 in 3Q 2019 - both statistically significantly above 50.0; for Global Services PMI, comparable figures were 52.0 in 3Q and 51.6 in 4Q 2019, again showing statistically significant growth.