The biggest mover in the market today was Sarepta Therapeutics, up as much as 100% on an FDA approval. We owned the stock in our Billionaire’s Portfolio, where we made more than 330% on the position in 18 months.
Today, I want to talk a bit about the back story on it; why Sarepta was one of the best risk/reward trades in the market.
Since 2012, the stock has gone from $3 to $45, back to $21, up to $55, back down to $12, up to $40, back down below $12, back to $25 and now back to $12.
Still, two years ago, Sarepta was a little–known stock. Perceptive Advisors, a specialist biotech hedge fund, stepped in and bought 9.5% of the stock on the prospects that the company would get approval on its drug, Eteplirsen, to treat Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. And they’ve endured all of the swings along the way.
Perceptive was the best performing hedge fund in 2015. It put up a 52% return, after fees, in a year when almost every hedge fund and mutual fund lost money, and the S&P barely eked out a gain. Among the winners, a private investment in Acerta, which was said to give Perceptive “the biggest return in the history of pharmaceuticals investing.” The fund also had a huge 2013 with four stocks that did over 500%.
Since 1999, the fund has returned north of 40% annualized, before fees. Clearly, they have a record of success picking the winners in the complex (but high rewards) biotech space. With that, we followed them into Sarepta.
In the past year, Sarepta became a highly covered and written about stock—with a lot of drama, because the big catalyst was due to come this year.
The FDA held an advisory committee meeting earlier in the year, where the committee reviewed the drug and gave their recommendation to the FDA on whether or not Eteplirsen should receive “accelerated approval.”
For context, Sarepta’s primary competitor’s drug was rejected by the FDA late last year. This meant Sarepta had the only drug on the table that can potentially treat Duchenne MD.
This review meeting was a highly controversial and publicized event that included personal testimonies from boys and families suffering from DMD.
Despite this, the committee concluded the meeting by recommending against the approval of Eteplirsen, by a very thin margin. Still, we knew there was a good chance that it could be overruled by the FDA’s top drug advisor, Janet Woodcock.
Perceptive’s Joe Edelman publicly said the same. We had one of, if not, the best biotech investors in the world saying “I find it hard to believe that the FDA would turn it down.”
What some investors missed? The important consideration was that Sarepta was seeking “accelerated approval.” For terminal diseases that have no treatment, the bar for approval in that “accelerated” application to the FDA is significantly lowered. They look at safety. They look at efficacy (does it work?). By rule, the FDA must give a lot of flexibility on the latter.
It was always widely agreed that Sarepta’s drug is safe. What was highly debated was efficacy. The FDA committee’s contention was that the trial studies were too lean to prove effectiveness, even though the testimonials said otherwise (patients and doctors alike had been begging the FDA to approve the drug for over a year). Given that it was safe, but highly debated on efficacy, the risk/reward of approving favored an approval, given the FDA was working on the lower approval bar detailed above.
Though the analyst community was mixed on the perceived outcome, it was believed that, on an approval, the stock would trade near $60.
We had two scenarios:
Scenario 1: If the FDA approves Eteplirsen in an accelerated approval, the stock could be worth $60 a share. It’s not uncommon for biotech stocks to jump 200% in one day when its drug is approved by the FDA. That would be a 260% return from its share price of just months ago.
Scenario 2: If Sarepta’s drug was not approved, the stock would probably sell back below $5 a share, based on Sarepta’s cash and intellectual property.
But the beauty of the trade: Even if Eteplirsen did not get accelerated approval, the company would get another chance to go back to the FDA with more studies and data, and Eteplirsen could have gotten approval next year—so our downside would be time.
Additionally, other biotech companies would be interested in Sarepta’s DMD assets even in the case of a non–approval by the FDA, and therefore Sarepta could be acquired at a nice premium.
So we were looking at risking maybe 50% downside or so, to make 5X on the upside—a 8 to 1 risk to reward trade in Sarepta.
As we know now, the news was good! Both for investors and, most importantly, for the boys suffering from the devastating DMD disease. Sarepta stock traded as high as $56.
Invitation to Join Billionaires Portfolio
If you want to participate in stocks that become the big stories on Wall Street … the big event-driven stocks, that pay handsome premiums, join us!
You can click here to subscribe — At BillionairesPortfolio.com, we are part of the effort that is underway to drive major change in the investment industry.
Through the internet, we can share what what we know, and give average investors the chance to take control of their own money.
Online brokers have made it easy, and cheap, to manage your own money. And we give average investors sophisticated research in a very easy to understand format.
In fact, we make things very simple. Our customers pay us a quarterly subscription fee, and we give them open access to see our carefully designed portfolio of stocks that are owned by the world’s best billionaire investors and hedge funds – plus a lot more.
Our premium research service, The Billionaire’s Portfolio, is a hand picked portfolio of the 20 best ideas from the world’s best hedge funds and billionaire investors. We follow the world’s best investors. You follow us.
We will send you weekly emails with in depth analysis of these top ideas, along with very helpful perspectives on the global economy and broader markets. As a member to our Billionaire’s Portfolio, you will have full access to our website where you can track our full portfolio and read all of our past research notes.
If for any reason you find that the service doesn’t suit you, just email us within the first 30-days, and we will refund your money.
I encourage you to join now if you are interested.
We have two big central bank meetings this week–BOJ and the Fed. With that, as we head into the week, let’s look at a key chart.
This chart is from a St. Louis Fed blog post last year. The inflation data, however, is all up-to-date. The Fed says “the chart above shows eight series that receive a lot of attention in the context of policy.”
So according to this chart, last year, as the Fed was building into its first rate hike to move away from emergency level rates and policies, the inflation data was looking soft. The Fed was telegraphing, clearly, a September hike, though six of the eight inflation measures in the chart above were running south of their target of 2% in the middle of last year. The headline inflation number for September, their preferred date of a hike, was zero!
Of course, after markets went haywire following China’s currency devaluation in August of last year, the Fed balked and stood pat. When things calmed, in December, they made their move. And at the same meeting, they projected to hike FOUR times this year. So far it hasn’t happened. It’s been a one and done.
Moreover, as of March of this year, they took two of those projected hikes off the table, and guided lower on growth, lower on inflation and a lower rate trajectory into the future. I would argue removing two hikes from guidance was effectively easing.
But if we look at the chart above, where inflation stands now relative to the middle of last year, when they were all “bulled-up” on rates, the story doesn’t jive. By all of the inflation measures, the economy is clearly running hotter (a relative term). Five of the eight inflation measures are running ABOVE the Fed’s 2% target (the horizontal black line in the chart). Yet, aside from a few Fed hawks that have been out trying to build expectations for a rate move soon, on balance, the messaging from the Fed has been mixed at best, if not dovish.
The Bernanke-led Fed relied heavily on communication (i.e. massaging sentiment and perception) to orchestrate the recovery, but the Fed, under Yellen, has been a communications disaster.
Join us here to get all of our in-depth analysis on the bigger picture, and our carefully curated stock portfolio of the best stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s best investors.
Since Friday of last week, there have been a lot of reports on the spike in the VIX. Today I want to talk about the VIX and the performance of major benchmark markets over the past week.
In a world where stability is king, central bankers have been very sensitive to swings in key financial markets, with the idea that confidence and the perception of stability can quickly become unhinged by market moves. When that happens, it becomes a big, viable threat to the global economic recovery and outlook. It can certainly send policy intentions off of the rails (as we’ve seen happen time and time again with the Fed).
Should they be worried?
With the above said, some might think the biggest threat to a Fed move in September (or December) isn’t economic data, but this chart.
Sources: Reuters, Forbes Billionaire’s Portfolio
First, what is the VIX? The VIX is an index that tracks the implied volatility of the S&P 500 index. What is implied volatility? It’s not actual volatility as might be measured by the dispersion of data from is mean.
Implied vol has more to do with the level of certainty that market makers have or don’t have about the future. When big money managers come calling for an option to hedge against potential downside in stocks, a market maker on the floor in Chicago at the CME prices the option with some objective inputs. And the variable input is implied volatility. When uncertainty is rising, the implied volatility value includes some premium over actual volatility. In short, if you’re a market maker and you think there is rising risk for a (as an example) a sharp decline in stocks, you will charge the buyer of that protection more, just as an insurance company would charge a client more for a homeowners policy in an area more included to see hurricanes.
So with that in mind, the implied vol market for the S&P 500 had been very subdued for the past 45 days or so, quickly falling back to complacency levels following the Brexit fears of late June. But since Friday, when market interest rates on government bonds spiked sharply (in the U.S., German, Japan), the VIX spiked from 12 to 20 (a more than 60% move).
That indicates a couple of things: 1) Stock investors were spooked by the move in rates and immediately looked for some downside protection, and 2) market makers aren’t quite as complacent as they appeared when the VIX was muddling along at low levels. They are quick to raise the insurance premium, highly spooked by the risk of a sharp decline in stocks.
But it looks like this recent spike might have more to do with market maker community that is psychologically damaged by the abrupt market moves of the past eight years. Gold is down since Friday – giving the opposite message of what the VIX is giving us about perceived uncertainty (people smell fear, they buy gold). And the S&P 500 has only lost 1.3% from its peak last Friday.
Global markets continue to swing around today. Remember, the past couple of days we’ve looked at the three most important markets in the world right now: U.S., German and Japanese 10-year government bonds.
In recent days, German and Japanese debt have swung back into positive territory. That’s a huge signal for markets, and it’s sustaining today – with German 10-year yields now at +8 basis points, and Japanese yields hanging around the zero line, after six months in negative territory.
Stocks are on the slide again, though. And the volatility index for stocks is surging again. Those two observations alone would have you thinking risk is elevated and perhaps a “calling uncle” stage is upon us and/or coming down the pike, especially if it’s a bubbly bond market. If that’s the case, gold should be screaming. It’s not. Gold is down today, steadily falling over the past five days.
So if you have a penchant for understanding and diagnosing every tick in the markets, as the media does, you will likely be a little confused by the inter-market relationships of the past few days.
That’s been the prevailing message from the Delivering Alpha conference today in New York: Confusion. Delivering Alpha is another high profile, big investor/best ideas conference. There are several conferences throughout the year now that the media covers heavily. And it’s been a platform for big investors to talk their books and, sometimes, get some meaningful follow on support for their positions.
Interestingly, one of the panelist today, Bill Miller, thinks we’ll see continued higher stocks, but lower bonds (i.e. higher yields/rates). Miller is a legendary fund manager. He beat the market 15 consecutive years, from the 90s into the early 2000s.
Miller’s view fits nicely with the themes we talk about here in my daily notes. Still, people are having a hard time understanding the disconnect between this theme and the historical relationship between stocks and bonds.
Let’s talk about why …
Historically, when rates go up, stocks go down — and vice versa. There is an inverse correlation.
This see-saw of capital flow from stocks to bonds tends to happen, in normal times, when stocks are hot and the economy is hot and the Fed responds with a rate hiking cycle. The rate path cools the economy, which puts pressure on stocks. That’s a signal to sell. And rising rates creates a more attractive risk-adjusted return for investors, so money moves out of stocks and into bonds.
But in this world, when the Fed is moving off of the zero line for rates, with the hope of being able to escape emergency policies and slowly normalize rates, they aren’t doing it with the intent of cooling off a hot economy (as would be the motive in normal times). They’re doing it and praying that they don’t cool off or destabilize a sluggishly growing economy. They’re hoping that a slow “normalization” in rates can actually provide some positive influence on the economy, by 1) sending a message to consumers and businesses that the economy is strong enough and robust enough to end emergency level policy. And by 2) restoring some degree of proper function in the financial system via a risk-free yield. Better economic outlook is good for stocks. And historically, when rates are lower than normal (under the long term average of 3% on the Fed Funds rate), P/E multiples run north of 20 – which gives plenty of room for multiple expansion on expected earnings (i.e. supports the bullish stocks case).
That’s why I think stocks go higher and rates go higher in the U.S. I assume that’s why Bill Miller (the legendary fund manager) thinks so too. It all assumes the ECB and the BOJ do their part – carrying the QE torch, which translates to, standing ready to act against any shocks that could derail the global economy.
But even if the Fed is able to carry on with a higher rate path, they continue to walk that fine line, as we discussed yesterday, of managing a slow crawl higher in key benchmark market rates (like the 10-year yield). An abrupt move higher in market rates would undo a lot of economic progress by killing the housing market recovery and resetting consumer loans higher (killing consumer spending and activity).
We headed into the weekend with a market that was spooked by a sharp run up in global yields. On Friday, we looked at the three most important markets in the world at this very moment: U.S. yields, German yields and Japanese yields.
On the latter two, both German and Japanese yields had been deeply in negative yield territory. And the perception of negative rates going deeper (a deflation forever message), had been an anchor, holding down U.S. market rates.
But in just three days, the tide turned. On Friday, German yields closed above the zero line for the first time since June 23rd. Guess what day that was?
Brexit.
And Japanese 10-year yields had traveled as low as 33 basis points. And in a little more than a month, it has all swung back sharply. As of today, yields on Japanese 10-year government debt are back in positive territory – huge news.
So why did stocks rally back sharply today, as much as 2.6% off of the lows of this morning – even as yields continued to tick higher? Why did volatility slide lower (the VIX, as many people like to refer to as, the “fear” index)?
Here’s why.
First, the ugly state of the government bond market, with nearly 12 trillion dollars in negative yield territory as of just last week, served as a warning signal on the global economy. As I’ve discussed before, over the history of Fed QE, when the Fed telegraphed QE, rates went lower. But when they began the actual execution of QE (buying bonds), rates went higher, not lower (contrary to popular expectations). Because the market began pricing in a better economic outlook, given the Fed’s actions.
With that in mind, the ECB and the BOJ have been in full bore QE execution mode, but rates have continued to leak lower.
That sends a confusing, if not cautionary, signal to markets, which is adding to the feedback loop (markets signaling uncertainty = more investor uncertainty = markets signaling uncertainty).
Now, with government bond yields ticking higher, and key Japanese and German debt benchmarks leaving negative yield territory, it should be a boost for sentiment toward the global economic outlook. Thus, we get a sharp bounce back in stocks today, and a less fearful market message.
Keep in mind, even after the move in rates on Friday, we’re still sitting at 1.66% in the U.S. 10-year. Before the Fed pulled the trigger on its first rate hike, in the post-crisis period, the U.S. 10-year was trading around 2.25%. As of last week, it was trading closer to 1.50%. That’s 75 basis points lower, very near record lows, AFTER the Fed’s first attempt to start normalizing rates. Don’t worry, rates are still very, very low.
Still, the biggest risk to the stability of the bond market is, positioning: The bond market is extremely long. If the rate picture swung dramatically and quickly higher, the mere positioning alone (as the longs all ran for the exit door) would exacerbate the spike. That would pump up mortgage rates, and all consumer interest rates, which would grind the economy to a halt and likely destabilize the housing market again. And, of course, the Fed would be stuck with another crisis, and little ammunition.
As Bernanke said last month, the Fed has done damage to their own cause by so aggressively telegraphing a tighter interest rate environment. In that instance, he was referring to the demand destruction caused by the fear of higher rates and a slower economy. But as we discussed above, the Fed also has risk that their hawkish messaging can run market rates up and create the same damage.
Bottom line: The Fed is walking a fine line, which is precisely why they continue to sway on their course, leaning one way, and then having to reverse and shift their weight the other way.
Last month we looked at 13F filings. These are the quarterly portfolio disclosures, required by the SEC, of large investors – those managing $100 million or more.
And we discussed 13D filings. These are required when a big investor takes a controlling stake in a company (ownership of 5% or more of the outstanding stock), he/she is required to disclose it to the SEC, through a public filing within ten days over crossing the 5% threshold. If it’s a passive investment, they file a form 13G. If they intend to engage management (i.e. wield influence) they file a 13D.
Bill Ackman, the well known billionaire activist investor, filed a 13D on Chipotle (CMG) yesterday. Today, we’ll take a look at this move.
In this filing, his fund, Pershing Square, disclosed a 9.9% stake in the company. Ackman thinks the stock is “undervalued” and “an attractive investment.”
Chipotle, at its peak valuation last year, was valued more like a high flying tech company. Yet this was a restaurant, albeit an innovator in the fast food business – in fact, they created a new segment in the food business, “fast casual.”
Then came the food crisis- an outbreak of e-coli cases. And the stock has been crushed – cut in half over the past year. Customers have been walking from Chipotle and into the many fast casual alternatives (competition spawned from Chipotle’s innovation).
Who tends to buy the bottom in these situations? Activists.
What’s a quick and easy fix in a sentiment crisis? Change.
To be sure, Chipotle has been drowning in a sentiment crisis. And even though Ackman thinks the company has “visionary leadership” we’ll see if he makes someone in current leadership a sacrificial lamb, in order to repair sentiment in the stock. This power to influence change is one of the few remaining edges in public stock market investing.
Ackman has said in a past letter to investors, “minority stakes in high quality businesses can be purchased in the public markets at a discount,” arising from two factors: “shareholder disaffection with management, and the short term nature of large amounts of retails and institutional investor capital which can overreact to negative short-term corporate or macro factors.” That’s how you identify value. But how do you close the value gap?
Shareholder disaffection with management is a typical qualifier to make it onto the radar screens of activist investors. There’s an opportunity to shake up management, change sentiment, and unlock value.
Last month, we talked about Mick McGuire, a protégé of Bill Ackman. He filed a 13D on Buffalo Wild Wings (BWLD), and announced a plan for change, and publicly said the stock could double on his game plan — it put a bottom in the stock.
Chipotle is up 5% on the news of Ackman’s involvement. At 42% off of highs, it’s a low risk/ high reward bet to follow Ackman.
In our Billionaire’s Portfolio, we’re positioned in deep value stocks that have the potential to do multiples of the broader market—all stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s smartest and most powerful billionaire investors. Join us today and get yourself in line with our portfolio. You can join here.
As we headed into the holiday weekend, stocks were sitting near record highs, yields were hanging around near record lows, and oil had been sinking back toward the danger zone (which is sub $40).
In examining the relationship of those three markets, each has a way of influencing the outcome and direction of the others.
First, the negative scenarios: A continued slide in oil would soon sink stocks again, and send yields (the interest rate outlook) falling farther. Cheap oil, in this environment, has dire implications for the energy business, which has a cascading effect, starting with banks, which effects credit and the dominos fall from there.
What about stocks? When stocks are falling, in this environment, it’s self-reinforcing. Lower stocks, equals souring sentiment, equals lower stocks.
What about yields? As we’ve seen, lower yields are supposed to promote spending and borrowing. But, in this environment, it comes with trepidation. Lower yields, especially when much of the world’s government bond markets are in negative yield territory, is having a stifling effect on economic activity, as many see it as a signal of another recession coming, or worse.
Now, for the positive scenarios. Most likely, they all come with intervention. That shouldn’t be surprising.
We’ve already seen the kitchen sink thrown at the stock market. From a monetary policy standpoint, the persistent Fed jockeying through much of the past seven years has now been handed over to Japan and Europe. QE in Europe and Japan continues to promote stability, which incentivizes the flow of capital into stocks (the only liquid alternative for return in a zero and negative interest rate world).
And we’ve seen them influence oil prices as well, through easing, currency market intervention, and likely the covert buying of oil back in February/March of this year (through China, ETFs via the BOJ or an intermediary Japanese bank). Still, OPEC still swings the big ax in the oil market, and it’s been OPEC intervention that has rigged oil prices to cheap levels, and it looks increasingly likely that they will send oil prices higher through a policy move. The news that Russian and Saudi Arabian might coordinate to promote higher oil prices, sent crude 5% higher on Monday.
As for yields, this is where the Fed is having a tough time. They want yields to slowly climb, to slowly follow their policy guidance. But the world hasn’t been buying it. When they hiked for the first time in December, the U.S. 10 year yield went from 2.25%, to 2.30% (for a cup of coffee) and has since printed new record lows and continues to hang closer to those levels than not (at 1.53% today). Lower yields makes it even harder for them to hike because it’s in the face of weaker sentiment.
Last week, we looked at the U.S. 10 year yield. It was trading in this ever narrowing wedge, looking like a big break was coming, one way or the other, following the jobs report on Friday. It looks like we may have seen the break today (lower), following the week ISM data this morning.
What could swing it all in the positive direction? Fiscal intervention.
As we discussed on Friday, the G20 met over the weekend. With world government leaders all in the same room, we know the geopolitical tensions have been rising, relationships have been dividing, but first and foremost priority for everyone at the table, is the economy.
Even those opportunistically posturing for influence and power (i.e. Russia, China), without a stable and recovery global economy, the political and domestic economic outlook is bleak. So we thought heading into the G20 that we could get some broader calls for government spending stimulus was in order.
The G20 statement did indeed focus heavily on the economy. They said, “Our growth must be shored up by well-designed and coordinated policies. We are determined to use all policy tools – monetary, fiscal and structural – individually and collectively to achieve our goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. Monetary policy will continue to support economic activity and ensure price stability, consistent with central banks’ mandates, but monetary policy alone cannot lead to balanced growth. Underscoring the essential role of structural reforms, we emphasize that our fiscal strategies are equally important to supporting our common growth objectives.”
Keep an ear open for some foreshadowing out of Europe to promote fiscal stimulus – the spot it’s most needed. That would be a huge catalyst for “risk assets” (i.e. commodities, stocks, foreign currencies) and would probably finally signal the top in the bond market.
After a fairly quiet August, we have a full docket of central meetings in the weeks ahead, starting this week. The European Central Bank meets on Thursday.
Join us here to get all of our in-depth analysis on the bigger picture, and our carefully curated stock portfolio of the best stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s best investors.
This time last month, the famed oil trader—and oil bull—Andy Hall was dealing with a sub-$40 oil market again. And he was again explaining losses to investors in his multi-billion dollar hedge fund.
A guy that has made a career, and hundreds of millions of dollar in personal wealth, picking tops and bottoms in oil, had entered 2016 coming off his worst year ever. And 2016 started even worse.
I’ve talked about the oil price bust extensively, at the depths of the decline in January and February. While most were glorifying the benefits of a few extra bucks in the pockets of consumers from low gas prices, we walked through the ugly outcome of persistently low oil prices. It would be another global financial crisis, as failing energy companies and defaulting oil producing countries would crush banks, and the dominos would fall from there. Unfortunately, the central banks don’t have the ammunition to pull the world back from the edge of disaster for a second time.
With that, central banks stepped in with more easing in the face of the oil price threat, and oil bounced sharply.
Hall’s fund bounced sharply too, running up nearly 25% for the year, by the end of June. But he gave a lot of it back by the time July ended. And now, again, oil is closer to $40 than $50. Thanks to a report yesterday, that oil supplies were bigger than expected, the price of crude has fallen 10% since Friday of last week.
Hall was the CitigroupC +0.13% oil trader who made billions of dollars for the bank energy trading arm, Phibro, in the early-to mid-2000s. He was one of the first to load up on oil futures in 2002, when oil was sub-$30, on the thesis that a boom in demand was coming from China.
He reportedly made $800 million in profits for Citi in 2005 from his original bullish bet. He then made more than $1 billion in 2008 for the bank, as oil prices soared to $147 a barrel and then abruptly crashed. He profited handsomely from both sides, earning a payout from Citi of more than $100 million.
So he’s a guy that has been very right about turning points, and big trends. And he’s been pounding the table for much higher oil prices. He thinks oil prices are in for a “violent reversal” (higher). With an important OPEC meeting scheduled for later this month, Hall, in a past investor letter, reminded people how powerful an OPEC policy shift can be. In 1986, the mere hint of an OPEC policy move sent oil up 50% in just 24 hours.
In our Billionaire’s Portfolio, we’re positioned in deep value stocks that have the potential to do multiples of the broader market—all stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s smartest and most powerful billionaire investors. Join us today and get yourself in line with our portfolio. You can join here.
We watched oil closely earlier this year. The oil price bust ultimately pulled down stocks. And when oil aggressively bounced off of the bottom, stocks recovered alongside, returning to new record highs.
Today it was oil again.
Stocks oscillated near record highs and following an anticipated Fed event last week had continued to tread water. That gives the bears a low risk trade to sell the S&P 500 against the top (as a take profit, hedge or just a trade), holding out hope that gravity would take hold.
It hasn’t happened. But we did get a catalyst to get it moving lower today, with a bigger than expected oil inventory build. That sent oil down nearly 4% on the day.
Oil stocks took a hit. But the broader stock market held up well, losing just 1/2 percent and recovering most of it by the day’s end.
The market still sits at critical levels going into the jobs number on Friday. Yields continue to chop in this ever tightening wedge (below) — a break looks certain on the jobs number. This is a very important chart.
And stocks are positioned close enough to the highs to encourage some profit taking (if the highs get taken out, you put the position back on … if the highs hold, you may have an opportunity to buy it back cheaper).
It remains a macro story – a central bank story. And that’s the mindset of the market as we head into the end of what has been a rather sleepy August.
In our Billionaire’s Portfolio, we’re positioned in deep value stocks that have the potential to do multiples of the broader market—all stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s smartest and most powerful billionaire investors. Join us today and get yourself in line with our portfolio. You can join here.
Last Thursday, everyone was awaiting the Friday Jackson Hole speech from Yellen. I suggested that, while all eyes were on Yellen, maybe Kuroda (the head of the BOJ) would steal the show: “he could conjure up some Bernanke style QE3. Not a bad bet to be long USD/JPY and dollar-denominated Nikkei through the weekend (ETF, DBJP or DXJ).”
Indeed, Yellen was short on clarity as we’ve discussed in recent days. As of this afternoon, stocks are now unchanged from Thursday afternoon (just prior to her speech). And the 10-year yield is right where it was before she spoke — and looking like a coin flip on which direction it may break. The pain is lower, so it will probably go lower.
As for Kuroda, he did indeed steal the show, at least in terms of market impact. On Saturday, Kuroda hit the wires saying its negative rate policy was far from reaching the limit and said they would act with more QE or deeper negative rates “without hesitation.” That’s a greenlight for buying Japanese stocks and selling the yen (buying USD/JPY).
The Nikkei is up 1.5% from Friday’s close, and USD/JPY is up 2.7% (yen down).
Was Kuroda telegraphing another big round of fresh QE (as Bernanke did in 2012)? Maybe. He said inflation remains vulnerable in Japan and is responding “differently” (i.e. worse) to shocks like falling oil prices.
Inflation in Japan, even after rounds of unprecedented QE, is back in negative territory and has been for five consecutive months of year-over-year deflation. The U.S. economy looks like its running hot compared to Japan. It’s not a bad bet to expect Japan to act first, with more QE, to pump asset prices, and then the Fed would have a little more breathing room to make another hike (either December) or early next year.
In our Billionaire’s Portfolio, we’re positioned in deep value stocks that have the potential to do multiples of the broader market—all stocks that are owned and influenced by the world’s smartest and most powerful billionaire investors. Join us today and get yourself in line with our portfolio. You can join here.
