Showing posts with label Stock Markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stock Markets. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

21/7/20: Stonks and Stinks: S&P500 Net Profit Margins


Stonks reporting season is rolling on. And so far, things are predictably gloomy:


Yeeks! But wait, by sector:

  • Seven out of eight sectors are reporting lower net profit margins than 5 year average, with Utilities being the only sector reporting above average margins;
  • Nine out of nine sectors reported so far have lower net profit margins than in 2Q 2019.
Per Factset: "For the second quarter, the S&P 500 is reporting a year-over-year decline in earnings of -44.0% and a year-over-year decline in revenues of -10.5%."

Double yeeeks!

Meanwhile, what's S&P and stonks are doing? 1 month chart:


and 3 months

Because happiness is just around the corner for all.

Thursday, May 7, 2020

7/5/20: No Value in Them, Stonks

No, folks, the markets are still not in line with fundamentals:


And that applies to all three sets of fundamentals: pre-COVID19 conditions in the underlying economy (secular stagnation), during-COVID19 collapse of the economy, and post-COVID19 expectations for the economy.

Which, of course, explains why Buffett sees no opportunities for buying, given the above chart is one of his favourite indicators of value.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

4/12/17: The Other Hockey Stick (not Bitcoin)


Financialization of the global economy is now complete, thanks to the world's hyperactive Central Banks and the age of riskless recklessness they engendered.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-12-04/98-750-067-000-000-reasons-to-be-scared-about-2018

The notable 'hockey stick' that is, dynamically reminiscent of the Bitcoin craze is now evident in the stock markets too, and it has zero parallels in the post-dot.com period. In fact, this is the highest global market capitalization level on record, as data from the World Bank augmented with current data through November 2017 shows:

You can think of the stratospheric rise in world equities valuations as a reflection of liquidity supply generated by the Central Banks since 2007. You can also think of it as a wealth buffer built up by the world's wealthy elites to protect themselves against potential future stagnation and political populism. You can equally think of it as a bubble.

Whichever way you spin these numbers, the rate of increase since 2015 has been simply unprecedented by historical standards, faster than the dot.com bubble and faster than the pre-GFC bubble.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

14/10/17: Happy Times in the Rational Markets


Two charts, both courtesy of Holger Zschaepitz @Schuldensuehner:



In simple terms, combined value of bond and stock markets is currently at around USD137 trillion or 179% of global GDP. Put slightly differently, that is 263% of global private sector GDP. There is no rational model on Earth that can explain these valuations. 

Since the start of this year, the two markets gained roughly USD15 trillion in value, just as the global economy is now forecast to gain USD3.93 trillion in GDP over the full year 2017. Based on the latest IMF forecasts, the first 9.5 months of stock markets and bonds markets appreciation are equivalent to to total global GDP growth for 2017, 2018, 2019 and a quarter of 2020. That is: nine and a half months of 'no bubbles anywhere' financial growth add up to thirty nine months of real economic activity.

Happy times, all.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

7/9/17: Long-Term Stock Market Volatility & the Influence of Terrorist Attacks


We just posted three new research papers on SSRN covering a range of research topics.

The first paper is "Long-Term Stock Market Volatility and the Influence of Terrorist Attacks in Europe", available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3033951

Abstract:

This paper examines the influence of domestic and international terrorist attacks on the volatility of domestic European stock markets. In the past decade, terrorism fears remained relatively subdued as groups such as Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) relinquished their arms. However, Europe now faces renewed fear and elevated threats in the form of Middle Eastern and religious extremism sourced in the growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), who remain firmly focused on maximising casualty and collateral damage utilising minimal resources. Our results indicate that acts of domestic terrorism significantly increase domestic stock market volatility, however international acts of terrorism within Europe does not present significant stock market volatility in Ireland and Spain. Secondly, bombings and explosions within Europe present evidence of stock market volatility across all exchanges, whereas infrastructure attacks, hijackings and hostage events do not generate widespread volatility effects. Finally, the growth of ISIL-inspired terror since 2011 is found to be directly influencing stock market volatility in France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the UK.



Saturday, June 18, 2016

18/7/16: Stock Markets Crashes: 1955-2015


A good summary of all stock markets crashes since 1955 through 2015 via Goldman Sachs:



The caption to the chart says it all.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Renewing appetite for risk?

“I have some good news, at least for the intermediate term: Investors are slowly regaining their appetite for risk”, wrote Marketwatch’s Mark Hulbert in his today’s column (here)
“This represents a big shift from the situation that prevailed last fall, when investors became so repulsed by any kind of risk that the yields on safe-haven investments like Treasury bills actually went negative.”

But now, says Hulbert, with January effect in full swing, things are looking up – investors are looking for risk once again.

“Of the several straws in the wind that point to at least a partial return of a risk appetite, one of the more compelling is the recent relative strength of risky small-cap stocks over the more conservative large caps. So far this year through Tuesday night, for example, large-cap stocks (as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 index (SPX: S&P 500 Index) have fallen 3.5%. Small-cap stocks, as measured by the Value Line Arithmetic Index (92040310), have declined by just 1.1%.”

Now, I am not convinced by Hulbert’s main argument.

January effect is a tax-minimization event, driven by heavier sales of shares with lowest capital gains potential to maximize losses in December (blue chips down) and re-balancing portfolio toward higher capital gains potential (small cap) in the new year. In normal years, movements correlate positively with risk, i.e. small cap – higher expected return, higher risk, blue chip - smaller expected returns, lower risk. But is that the case this time around? In other words, the markets might be going into smaller cap because the larger cap is actually relatively riskier (controlling for current valuations), not because they are seeking higher risk-return strategies.

Chart below illustrates Mark Hulbert’s point – at its right-hand margin. Indeed, the short-term performance by the two indices does suggest that the markets are placing more faith in the small-caps. But it shows that this was true for much of the 2008 with exception of the late autumn. In other words, if current divergence vis-à-vis S&P is a sign of new appetite for risk, what did the market have appetite for in July 2008 when small caps went up and S&P stayed relatively flat? Why did the price of risk implicit in the difference in two indices has fallen in April-June and July-early August? Were these the ‘turning’ points in underlying appetite for risk or just traditional bear rallies?
An alternative explanation for the ‘January effect’-like pattern observed is that investors' risk perception might have shifted. Consider the following scenario: You are in a market with four broad asset classes:
  • large-cap,
  • small-cap,
  • corporate bonds and
  • Treasuries.
You believe that too much risk-taking has taken place in the second half of December by pursuing a bear rally in S&P500 stocks and the Treasuries. If you move into relative safety, you will move into the two remaining assets. You will have an incentive to prefer the small caps if you believe that they have taken the heaviest beating to date (which they did – see peak to trough moves around September-mid November) and you invoke another powerful anomaly of the ‘Winner’s Curse”. The real question then becomes is what does the analysis of relative position changes in corporate debt and small cap shares tell us. The large cap stocks are irrelevant here.

Hence, what appears to be a renewed appetite for risk can be interpreted as a hedging strategy against rising risk levels and falling expected returns in the so-called traditionally ‘safer’ asset classes.

What Hulbert is right about is that one should not overplay the story too much. Instead, the return of the January effect pattern (or something else resembling it) might mean “that the stock market will gradually resume its normal function of assessing different securities' relative risks and returns, a function it couldn't fulfill when it was indiscriminately punishing virtually everything other than Treasuries.”

Yes, but… even if Hulbert is correct, the return to rationality in the markets will be bound to:
• trigger fresh downgrades in many companies and indices as corporate returns deteriorate throughout H1 2009, as the bath water gets muddier with longer recession; and
• this rationality will remain extremely fragile and prone to collapse every time the elephant in the room – the US Government – moves about.

Hulbert omits the latter issue, but it is non-trivial to his topic. We are in the changing political cycle – and with it – a prospect of a new stimulus that is bound to prop up smaller business. If, as is the case, Uncle Sam’s rescue packages for many blue chips were already priced into these companies valuations in late December, Obama's first 100-day sweetheart package for Congress is yet to be fully priced into stocks valuations. It might be that the ‘January effect’ is simply the reflection of this delay in recognizing that the next Uncle Sam's move will a stimulus for smaller companies?..

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Volatility falling?

In a rare piece of good news VIX index measuring (albeit imperfectly) revealed risk assessments in the US markets, has fallen below 40 on the final trading day of the year, for the first time since October 1. The VIX is the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index shows the market's expectations for volatility over a 30-day period.

As my students in Investment Theory course would know, only human imagination is a limit to the number of ways one can think about (and depict) market volatility. Here are three simple (my favourite criteria for empirical validity) ways of doing this.

Chart 1 plots VIX data since January 1990. This shows a dramatic fall in VIX reading since November highs. But, it also shows the cyclicality of VIX – an approximate 3:5:3 cycle of 3 years rising volatility trend, followed by 4-5 years of elevated ‘flat’ trend, concluding with a 3 years of falling trend. By this pattern, we are not out of the woods. Indeed, we have just finished the 3-year rising trend bit around mid 2008, implying that a long-term elevated volatility period may be still ahead for us.
Chart 2 plots intra-day variation in VIX (High-to-Close, alongside the same logic as semi-variance models of risk pricing). Note the unusually elevated red peaks since ca July 2007. This disputes the common claim that it took some time for credit markets troubles (starting in mid-Summer 2007) to feed through into the markets for real claims (assets with fundamental underpinnings). Once again, the latest moderation in VIX reading may be simply concealing the historically high volatilities in risk perceptions that drive daily markets.

Chart 3 shows three alternative, albeit slightly similar, measures of risk dynamics. Note that up until around mid February 2007, daily deviations in VIX readings measured as ‘High’-to-‘Low’ and ‘High-to-Close’ tracked one another and were roughly in line with the weekly Moving Average in the standard deviation. In other words, while risk itself might have been rising or falling over time, the uncertainty about the future risk levels was much lower and more static prior to the beginning of 2007.
This ‘calm’ was first challenged in February and then finally shattered in late September 2007. Once again, no matter how positive the latest decline in VIX to below 40 may sound, we are not of the woods yet.

Expect:
• More intra-day and intra-week volatility, and
• Less predictability in volatility trend.
2009 seas of financial market are going to be no less choppy than the ‘Perfect Storm’-torn 2008.