I talked last week about the move in oil, and the lag in natural gas.
But natural gas was knocking on the door of a technical breakout. As you can see, that breakout looks to be underway now.
Nat gas is now at $3.25. If history is any indication, it could be in the low $4s soon.
That’s helped by chatter today from OPEC members out vocally supporting the production cut that was agreed to two weeks ago. And the Secretary General of OPEC piled on today by saying the sharp contraction in investments (due to low prices) poses a threat to global oil supply. As we’ve discussed, for those that had the “oil price to zero” arguments earlier in the year, supply changes, so does demand.
With all of this, oil continues to climb higher, testing the June highs today. Here’s another look at the chart.
A break above the June highs of $51.67 would project a move to near $65 (technically speaking, it’s a C-wave). Another big technical level above is $68.60, which is the 61.8% retracement of the move down from almost $95 in late 2014, to the lows of earlier this year. That’s the breakdown in oil prices driven by OPEC’s 2014 refusal to cut production. And now were on the verge of getting the first cut in eight years. So oil is looking like higher levels are coming — it was up another 3% today.
What’s does it mean for stocks? As we’ve discussed, for much of the year, lower oil has meant lower stocks, and higher oil has meant higher stocks.
This emerging bullish technical and fundamental backdrop for energy should be very good for stocks. Remember, higher energy prices, in this environment, removes the risk of another oil price shock-to-sentiment (good for stocks, good for the economy). And it means producers can start producing again, downstream businesses can fill capacity, and we can start seeing some of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs replenished that have been lost over the past two years.
Since OPEC rigged lower oil prices back in late 2014, we’ve had over 100 North American energy company bankruptcies. Some of those have/are reorganizing and emerging with lean balance sheets into what could be a hot recovery in energy prices. I’ll talk about some tomorrow.
The Billionaire’s Portfolio is up 23% year-to-date — that’s nearly four times the return of the S&P 500 during the same period. We recently exited a big FDA approval stock for a quadruple, and we’ve just added a new pick to the portfolio — following Warren Buffett into one of his favorite stocks. If you haven’t joined yet, please do. Click here to get started and get your portfolio in line with our Billionaire’s Portfolio.
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).
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.
Yesterday was the deadline for all big investors to submit, to the SEC, a public snapshot of their portfolios for the quarter ended June 30th.
On that note, as we’ve discussed, this information is covered hot and heavy by the media. You often see headlines like these (these are actual headlines from yesterday): “Activist hedge fund ValueAct takes about 2 percent stake in Morgan Stanley” or “George Soros sells off Apple stake during the second quarter.”
On the above stories, if you own Morgan Stanley should you feel good about it? Conversely, if you own Apple, should you be worried? The heavy coverage of the topic both online and on television implies “yes” to both, which likely gets the average investor stirring. But there’s never context given as to whether or not the information is meaningful, and there’s never evidence given as to what the results tend to be for those that follow. The reason is, it requires a lot of hard work, experience, ingenuity and proprietary research to draw any conclusions from the information.
Still, it’s safe to assume the UK event had considerable influence on the holdings of the world’s biggest investors. Global markets swung violently on the news back in June. Remember, between June 23rd and June 27th, the S&P 500 fell as much as 5.7%. It made it all back the subsequent four days.
So given the timing of the portfolio snapshot with the Brexit fears, let’s talk about Apple, the most widely held stock in the world and the largest constituent in the market cap weighted S&P 500. The headlines were scrolling fast and furious on Apple yesterday, following the filings from billionaire investors David Einhorn, George Soros and Chase Coleman – all of which sold Apple shares in the quarter. Now, it’s important to understand that these funds can trade Apple with virtual anonymity between quarters. The stock is too large for anyone one investor to take a 5% “activist” stake, which would trigger the requirement of a 13D filing with the SEC, which would require updated filings (or amendments) within 10 days of any change in the position size (sell one share, you have to report it).
On that note, let’s start some perspective on Einhorn’s Apple stake: Going into the second quarter Einhorn’s biggest position, by far, was Apple. He had 15% of his fund in the stock (a huge position). It would only make since that he would trim the position and neutralize some risk into an uncertain macro event. In fact, in his second quarter letter, Einhorn brags that they have done a good job of “trading” Apple (i.e. managing the downside). Still, as of the end of Q2, Apple was a very large position, at 12% of his fund.
What about the tech investing genius billionaire Chase Coleman? Coleman had 9% of his $7 billion fund (long public equities) in Apple going into the second quarter. By the end, he had cut it by 75%. Again, playing defense into Brexit. Apple stock is 16% higher than it traded on June 30. Coleman may very well have put the full position back on since the June 30 snapshot (likely).
George Soros? First, we should note that Soros is the world’s best global macro investor. He’s an agile investor that will load up on a theme and just as quickly reverse course and position for another probable outcome. For a career, Soros’ bread has been buttered betting on the unexpected outcome. That’s where the big wins come. Brexit was unexpected, thus his trimming of Apple, the stock with the biggest contribution to his view on a slide in the S&P 500.
And then we have arguably the greatest investor of all-time, Warren Buffett. While others ran from Apple, Buffett increased his stake by more than 55%. Why? Buffett has made his living for more than 50 years buying good companies when everyone else is selling. As he says, “be greedy when others are fearful.”
That’s a sliver of perspective on the popular 13F filings of the past few days. As I said yesterday, the presence of a big investor in a stock is rarely valuable information. Only a small percentage of those reporting investors have the powerful combination of size, influence and portfolio concentration to make their presence alone a potential catalyst for change in a company/and a repricing of the stock.
Follow The Lead Of Great Investors Like Warren Buffett In Our Billionaire’s Portfolio
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.
After the past two weeks, that included a Fed decision, more BOJ action, the approval of Japanese fiscal stimulus, a rate cut and the return to QE for the Bank of England, and a strong jobs report, this week is a relative snoozer.
With that, every headline this week seems to contain the word Trump. Clearly the media thought a post by the former Fed Chairman, the architect of the global economic recovery and interventionist strategies that continue to dictate the stability of the global economy (and world, in general) today, wasn’t quite as important as Trump watching.
On Monday, Ben Bernanke wrote a blog post that laid out what appears to be his interpretation of a shift in gears for the Fed – an important message. Don’t forget, this is also the guy that may have the most intimate knowledge of where the world has been over the past decade, what it’s vulnerable to, and what the probable outcomes look like for the global economy. And he’s advising one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, the biggest bond fund in the world and one of the most important central banks in the world (at the moment), the Bank of Japan. And it’s safe to assume he still has influence plenty of influence at the Fed.
My takeaway from his post: The Fed’s forward guidance of the past two years has led to a tightening in financial conditions, which has led to weaker growth, lower market interest rates and lower inflation.
Why? Because people have responded to the Fed’s many, many promises of a higher interest rate environment, by pulling in the reins somewhat.
To step back a bit, while still in the midst of its third round of QE, the Fed determined in 2012, under Bernanke’s watch, that words (i.e. perception manipulation) had been as effective, if not more, than actual QE. In Europe, the ECB had proven that idea by warding off a bond market attack and looming defaults in Spain and Italy, and a collapse of the euro, by simply making promises and threats. With that in mind, and with the successful record of Bernanke’s verbal intervention along the way, the Fed ultimately abandoned QE in favor of “forward guidance.” That was the overtly stated gameplan by the Fed. Underpin confidence by telling people we are here, ready to act to ensure the recovery won’t run off of the rails — no more shock events.
The “forward guidance” game was working well until the Fed, under Yellen, started moving the goal posts. They gave a target on unemployment as a signal that the Fed would keep rates ultra low for quite some time. But the unemployment rate hit a lot sooner than they expected. They didn’t hike and they removed the target. Then they telegraphed their first rate hike for September of last year. Global markets then stirred on fears about China’s currency moves, and the Fed balked on its first rate move.
By the time they finally moved in December of last year, the market was already questioning the Fed’s confidence in the robustness of the U.S. economy, and with the first rate hike, the yield curve was flattening. The flattening of the yield curve (money moving out of short term Treasuries and into longer term Treasuries, instead of riskier assets) is a predictor of recession and an indicator that the market is betting the Fed made/is making a mistake.
And then consider the Fed’s economic projections that include the committee’s forecasts on interest rates. By showing the market/the world an expectation that rates will be dramatically higher in the coming months, quarters and years, Bernanke argued in his post that this “guidance” has had the opposite of the desired effect — it’s softened the economy.
So in recent months, starting back in March, the Fed began dramatically dialing back on the levels and speed they had been projecting for rates. It’s all beginning to look like the Fed should show the world they are positioned to well underestimate the outlook, rather than overestimate it, as it’s implied by Bernanke. The thought? Perhaps that can lead to the desired effect of better growth, hotter inflation.
This post by Bernanke is reversing some of the expectations that had been set in the market for a September or December rate hike by the Fed. And the U.S. 10-year yield has, again, fallen back — from 1.62% on Monday to a low of 1.50% today. Still, the Fed showed us in June they expect one to two hikes this year. Given where market rates are, they may still be overly hawkish.
This is the perfect time to join us in our Billionaire’s Portfolio, where we follow the lead of the best billionaire investors in the world. You can join us here.
Yesterday we walked through some charts from key global stock markets. As we know, the S&P 500 has been leading the way, printing new highs this week.
U.S. stocks serve as a proxy on global economic stability confidence, so when stocks go up in the U.S., in this environment, there becomes a feedback loop of stability and confidence (higher stocks = better perception on stability and confidence = higher stocks …)
That said, as they begin to capitulate on the bear stories for stocks, the media is turning attention to opportunities in emerging markets. But as we observed yesterday in the charts, you don’t have to depart from the developed world to find very interesting investment opportunities. The broad stock market indicies in Germany and Japan look like a bullish technical breakout is coming (if not upon us) and should outpace gains in U.S. stocks in second half of the year.
Now, over the past few weeks, we’ve talked about the slide in oil and the potential risks that could re-emerge for the global economy and markets.
On Wednesday of last week, we said this divergence (in the chart below) between oil and stocks has hit an extreme — and said, “the oil ‘sharp bounce’ scenario is the safer bet to close the gap.”
Sources: Billionaire’s Portfolio, Reuters
Given this divergence, a continued slide in oil would unquestionably destabilize the fundamentals again for the nascent recovery in energy companies.
With that, and given the rescue measures that global central banks extended in response to the oil bust earlier this year, it was good bet that the divergence in the chart above would be closed by a bounce back in oil.
That’s been the case as you can see in the updated chart below (the purple line rising).
Sources: Billionaire’s Portfolio, Reuters
At the peak today, oil had bounced 11% in just five trading days. Oil sustaining above the $40 is key for the stability of the energy industry (and thus the quelling the potential knock-on effects through banks and oil producing sovereigns). Below $40 is the danger zone.
In a fairly quiet week for markets (relative to last week), there was a very interesting piece written by former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke yesterday.
Tomorrow we’ll dig a little deeper into his message, but it appears that the Fed’s recent downgrade on what they have been projecting for the U.S. economy (and the path of policy moves) is an attempt to stimulate economic activity, switching for optimistic forward guidance (which he argues stifled activity) to more pessimistic/dovish guidance (which might produce to opposite).
Remember, we’ve talked in recent months about the effect of positive surprises on markets and the economy. We’ve said that, given the ratcheting down of earnings expectations and expectations on economic data, that we were/are set up for positive surprises. Like it or not, that’s good for sentiment. And it’s good for markets. And it can translate into good things for the economy (more hiring, more investment, more spending).
The positive surprises have been clear in earnings. It’s happening in economic data. It looks like the Fed is consciously playing the game too.
This is the perfect time to join us in our Billionaire’s Portfolio, where we follow the lead of the best billionaire investors in the world. You can join us here.
