Posts filed under 'The Market'

The Market – Tortilla Inflation

In case you haven’t heard, there are suddenly a lot of angry Mexicans these days.  I am not referring to the forced expulsion of illegal immigrants from this country, many of whom experienced disclocation from their families here in the States.  (Yes, they are illegal, and yes, it is a problem, but we probably could be a bit more humane with our illegal immigrant policy).  Nope, this instead is due to the price of their most basic food product, the tortilla, shooting through the roof. writes on 3/26/07, “In Mexico, manufacturers have already started to feel the pain of the [food] inflation, with political consequences.  In January, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon was forced to impose a price cap on tortillas of 35 cents a pound, after thousands stormed Mexico City’s Central Square in protest of the massive rise in recent prices of tortillas.  Tortillas are a staple in the diets of most Mexicans and a key component of the Mexican economy.  The price cap, which is 40% more than the price for tortillas only three months ago, is still generating political tension in the country.  The hike in tortilla prices is believed to be a result of the demand for corn ethanol, generated by President Bush’s recommendations for a fourfold increase in the use of the substance in his new “cleaner energy” initiative.””  Some may laugh at this thought, but let’s be sure to remind them of all the American’s who complained bitterly because their cigarette prices were hiked substantially in an effort to quantify and pay for the effect of smoking on the public health system.  And as far as I know, humans don’t need cigarettes to survive.  Furthermore, increasing food prices due to an emerging third world middle class and the surge in demand from ethanol production will also hurt American’s wallets.  Rising food costs is not simply a third world issue. 

So in another classic foreign policy blunder becoming so endemic of this Administration, we are now exporting poverty to the lower classes of the third world.  And we are doing so in an almost blind hope that our investment in ethanol will add a net positive energy balance to our economy, instead of spending the billions in spending and subsidies on other alternative energy technologies.  But… this is what the decrepit US auto industry wanted, this is what US oil companies wanted, and unfortunately in our country, more often than not, the corporations, and not consumers, have the government’s ear first.  So let’s give the third world another reason to hate us by making it more difficult to pay for basic daily meals.  And don’t be surprised if you hear Chavez start expounding about how the great American evil empire is now trying to starve Latin American countries.  We just can’t seem to stop giving ourselves a black eye.

Add comment March 28th, 2007

The Market – March 21, 2007, Day of Disbelief

Today’s market action goes beyond belief and expected reality.  The two percent increase across all indices simply because of the deletion of the words “additional firming” without a thoughtful analysis of the meaning behind the Fed’s statement, screams ignorance as the bulls and bargain hunters shoot first and think second.  The Fed changed its typical language, dropping the focus on further rate hikes. The new language reads: “Future policy adjustments will depend on the evolution of the outlook for both inflation and economic growth, as implied by incoming information.” The old language reads: “The extent and timing of any additional firming that may be needed to address these risks will depend on the evolution of the outlook for both inflation and economic growth, as implied by incoming information.”

Perhaps the Fed doesn’t know what they are doing (unlikely), but let’s consider the change in the Fed policy statement relative to the data since the last meeting.  In the face of increasing inflationary pressures, further signs of economic deterioration, and housing malaise, the Fed decided to remove their “additional firming” position.  If the Fed is develping a more dovish stance, as the market seemed to believe today, then this Fed may not be very smart.  But I don’t think the Fed’s intention today was to suggest that it is more dovish (much to the market’s chagrin).  Rather, I think the Fed’s intention was to show that its concern is no longer simply about inflationary pressures, but now includes increasing concerns over the potential for macroeconomic systemic shock risks (such as subprime fallout, continued housing malaise, potential manufacturing sector recession, etc.) and a weaker than expected economy.  The Fed is basically saying, “we do not believe inflation is the only risk anymore, as such we are removing the ‘additional firming’ position and replacing it with ‘we will do whatever is necessary to help this economy if it weakens more than expected, or suffers a sudden systemic shock, or inflationary pressures increase.”

I have to wonder if during this frenzied bullish up-move today, did no one step back and think ‘hm, the Fed really talked a lot today about increasing inflationary pressures… maybe they aren’t trying to suggest they have a dovish position.”  The Fed even said, “Recent readings on core inflation have been somewhat elevated.” That’s opposed to January’s statement, which read: “Readings on core inflation have improved modestly in recent months, and inflation pressures seem likely to moderate over time.”  Today’s Fed was not a dovish Fed; it was a Fed proactively positioning itself for a quick response to the three economic risks noted above.  Remember, we are dealing with Helicopter Ben, whom likes to remind the market of the Fed’s multiple tools available to sustain stable economic growth.  Hopefully the market will come to its senses, and all of the fast money that greedily poured into the market today will somehow grow a brain and consider that the Fed may be more concerned about the economy than it would like to let on.

Add comment March 22nd, 2007

The Market – A Speculation Induced Sell-off

Though the market has had quite a fall, I don’t think we have even seen a general selling panic and that suggests this recent fall simply reflects the closing of leveraged speculative positions. A tremendous amount of carry-trade speculation may have been built into this market! There is potentially another 40% carry trade speculation built into the Yen, which gained in value from around 121 to 116.7 this week (not to mention Swiss Franc) if you assume the Yen should more likely be priced around 112 given the underlying fundamentals of the Japanese economy. That is a lot of potential liquidity hitting the markets over the next few weeks. Throwing some numbers out there, if speculative carry-trade closing represented 80% of this markets fall, or around 3.5% for the week, more unwinding could represent around a 2.8% fall.

Why do I suggest that speculative unwinding represented so much of this market’s fall? Various commentary talks about how most institutions and average American investors still seem to be holding to their portfolios and “according to a new MSN-Zogby poll, just 5% of Americans said they see a decline like this week’s as an opportunity to buy, and only 1% said the slumping stock market causes them to sell. Thirty-four percent said they either don’t own stocks or are unsure how to react to a downturn.” CNBC writes, “most strategists on Wall Street haven’t made any moves in their portfolios, however, as they believe it is still too early to determine which moves to make, CNBC reported: “Now that the correction is on us, people are trying to decide what to do,” said Jordon Kimmel, a market strategist at National Securities.”

So will this market continue to have an unwinding of leveraged speculative positions? The risks that could force a carry-trade unwinding and closure of speculative market positions include increasing Yen value, fall-out in the sub-prime and thus CDO market causing capital requirements to clean up that mess, a few blow-ups in highly leveraged hedge funds, a broader fall in the market led by the average American investor and institutions not partaking in the carry-trade, and also a blow up in an emerging market like Russia or India. Jim Jubak of MSN Money writes, “India is very dependent on global cash flows. Unlike China, India runs a trade deficit and only showed a total capital account surplus in fiscal 2006 because of that $12.5 billion from overseas investors in stocks, foreign direct investment of $6 billion in 2006 and rising corporate borrowing on international capital markets (about $6 billion in fiscal 2005). India was relatively untouched by the Asian financial crisis of 1997, but it is much more vulnerable to changes in external cash flows today.”

The defining aspect of this market run-up and recent fall was the liquidity explosion driven by cheap credit that took the positive market reaction to a ‘goldilocks’ economy and drove it even higher both here and in emerging markets. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to measure how much liquidity in the system is currently priced into the market, as well as the leveraged risk structure of that liquidity. We are able to measure, with some broad assumptions, some of that liquidity risk exposure through the fall of the Yen and Swiss franc and the corresponding fall in the market. Yet overall, too many people know too little about the amount of risk built into current liquidity levels, especially with regard to the derivatives market and CDOs.

A key aspect of this recent market fall is that it didn’t really involve the average American investor and institutions not partaking in the carry-trade. Whether this is dangerous complacency or simply confidence is an important question. Most of the market commentary I read suggests that because the economy is fine, this market should regain its footing and start trending up again. But should we rely on an altar of unbridled confidence when so many bearish tipping points exist? And could seemingly insignificant events, such as the trading scandal, though not in any way a fundamentals changing event, add a smell of rot to this market and increase investor skepticism?

Over the next few weeks, it is going to be very important to watch the effect of the speculative positions on the mentality of the base market support and hope (unless you have a bearish position) that none of the tipping factors described above lead to further speculative unwinding and a bearish domino effect on the broader market support. For instance, the fact that gold fell so much and is now at $644 while silver is at $12.90 is quite interesting. It suggests real concern that China is slowing down. I think it also suggests an unwinding of speculative positions. As mentioned above, the fact that most investors, including the average American investor and institutions not participating in the carry-trade, have not felt the need to reposition their portfolios, ie, buy gold or silver as a defensive hedge, suggests that the fall in these two metals was speculative position closing. I think if these metals start rising in value, and the Yen or Swiss franc do not fall in value suggesting a carry-trade re-strengthening, then consider that a bearish sign that the broader market is buying gold and silver as a hedge against further market deterioration.

On a technical basis, the Nasdaq is suddenly very close to its 50 day weekly moving average around 2,300, only about 70 points or 3% away from Friday’s close! The Dow is also quickly approaching is 50 day weekly support around 11,750. That is about 360 below Friday’s close or 3%, and that could feasibly be reached as Dow lost 533 this last week alone. If either index blows through those supports, we could see some real downside with selling pressure from broad market investors.

Add comment March 3rd, 2007

The Market – ‘Fed Rate’ Spread to ‘Inflation Rate’

An article from Bloomberg titled “Bonds Lose `Masters of Universe’ as Volatility Falls” by Elizabeth Stanton, notes the following: “The annual inflation rate has averaged 2.8 percent since the start of 2000, down from 3 percent in the 1990s and 5.6 percent in the 1980s. Lower inflation has enabled the Fed to keep its benchmark overnight rate lower. It has averaged 3.24 percent this decade, compared with 5.12 percent in the 1990s and 9.86 percent in the 1980s.”  Using this data to do a very basic back of the envelope analysis, I derived the following:

% Spread
Inflation Rate Fed Rate Spread to Inflation
1980s             5.60             9.86 4.26 76%
1990s             3.00             5.12 2.12 71%
2000s             2.80             3.24 0.44 16%
Current             2.50             5.25 2.75 110%


Assuming this data is correct, one could interpret this data as suggesting the Fed is very concerned about any upside to inflation and thus has a very high ‘spread to inflation rate’ compared to historical averages.  Interestingly, the low spread average from 2000 to 2006 reflects the significant liquidity that has been pumped into the economy over that time period versus the prior two decades.  If anything, the current high spread may simply be an attempt to reduce the inflationary liquidity in the system.  With that said, comparing metrics for a point in time to that of historical averages can be tricky and misleading.

Add comment February 20th, 2007

The Market – Important Events that Will Shape the Market

The Bank of Japan is about to make a rate decision that could have far-reaching ramifications.  If the BOJ does raise the overnight rate to 0.50%, the Yen carry-trade could face some significant unwinding and much of the market liquidity we currently have could dry up.  Though I find this scenario above unlikely as a 0.50% rate is still comparatively cheap to that of holding other assets, any concern that the Yen could appreciate significantly could make a significant unwinding of the carry-trade more likely. 

Certainly, what would really hurt the carry-trade and global liquidity is if the Japanese economy suddenly strengthens and provides support for higher rates.  Again, though this is unlikely over the next quarter, the market would have a liquidity scare.  Now, if you add to this the Fed becoming more hawkish, then the double whammy could be very intense.

So what are the key bearish and bullish factors facing the market?  On top of a potential liquidity crunch, add the growing quagmire of the sub-prime mortgage backed market fallout (which hardly anyone seems to really think is going to be a problem as a lot of market participants feel that derivatives, CDOs in particular, have successfully spread default risk so much so that securities loss is almost unthinkable), plus add a continued housing shakeout leading to a reduction in construction jobs, tightening lending standards, and fall in consumer mortgage equity withdrawals, and you suddenly are faced with a very different environment than the one currently priced in.

Then, throw in declining earnings with somewhat mediocre outlooks, a low risk pricing environment, plus a market that is hitting new record highs, and you just have to ask, ‘who the hell wants to lead the charge in the face of this risk?’

Now if you look at what could move the market up, a falling Fed rate would be one consideration as the economy softens.  But then of course, the economy would have to soften in the tightrope goldilocks fashion because usually a softening economy is bad for the market.  Or you could consider increased liquidity, but where would the increased liquidity come from especially when most of the world’s major central banks are in the process of tightening and the BOJ certainly can’t add too much more liquidity than it currently provides.  What about a sudden increase in company earnings?  Well, companies have already guided for some mediocre quarters based on tough comps and market conditions, and if anything, a lot of companies are attempting to spruce up earnings with job cuts, but of course, those are bad for the economy as well.  We could have an earnings surprise to the upside for Q1, but that is unlikely.  Another possibility is the US economy could strengthen more than expected, but the Fed has made it pretty clear they would consider any strengthening as potentially increasing inflation of which they are eager to combat.  The subsequent increase in the Fed rate would likely not be appreciated by the market.  So what about share buybacks and PE leveraged buyouts?  Certainly, those are already providing some market support as companies have recently announced massive buyback packages and 2007 is already famed as the year of the private equity LBO.  But these two efforts are simply icing on the cake, and I don’t believe they have the firepower to make a market trend up over the medium to long term.  Finally, what about an increase in P/E multiples supporting the market?  The S&P 500 is already trading slightly above its long-term average, and as we are in the 5th year of this bull-market run, does it really seem reasonable to think multiples will continue to expand?

Basically, if one compares the probability and likely market effect of the basket of potential bearish events versus the probabilistic likelihood and effect of the basket of potential bullish events, the scales seem to tip very much in the favor of the bearish camp.  With that said, the market has a tendency to spike upward before establishing a downtrend, so the next few months should be interesting as these events pan out.

Add comment February 19th, 2007

The Market – US Mint: A Profit Making Machine

The US Mint is now issuing the new $1 coin collector series that will feature 4 presidents a year for a total of 43 presidents over 11 years. Not too long ago, the mint issued a new quarter collector series featuring all 50 states, and this series is still in the process of been introduced. The US Mint seems to be developing some business savvy.

For each series, the total value of $1 coins issued will be $43, and the total value of the twenty-five cent coins will be $12.50. If one were to assume that these two series will be collected by 5 million coin aficionados, then the dollar value of the coin collections could approach $278 million in non-tax revenue for the government. Importantly, this money in coin collections does not add to the money supply used in everyday transactions and the velocity of money within an economy.

Basically, the US government has found a nifty little way to generate revenue from printing (in this case, ‘coining’) money without increasing the amount of money in circulation and in effect the monetary effect on the inflation rate. Who says the government doesn’t know how to run a business?

Add comment February 17th, 2007

The Market – The Fed and Buffer Inflation

Here is a conspiracy theory for you.  Perhaps the Fed benefits by not releasing / utilizing the inflation numbers that are often higher than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure.  The Dallas Fed tracks inflation with a trimmed mean PCE rate and the Cleveland Fed uses a weighted median CPI, both of which usually show inflation as higher than the standard CPI measure.  By using the officially accepted CPI, which also has the benefit of usually showing a lower inflation amount when food and energy are stripped out (two things a human being really doesn’t need anyway, let alone the American consumer), the Fed is able to quietly let higher inflation flow through the economy and thus not be forced by an inflation-wary market to raise rates to combat inflation.  Raising rates would likely have a negative correlation on asset prices (real estate and the stock market) and also the unemployment rate. 

Ever since the Volker Fed in the 1970s, it has been the Fed’s objective to prevent run-away inflation, or the ‘expectation’ of higher inflation by the market and the average consumer.  But current economic theory suggests that in containing inflation, the Fed may counter economic growth and thus job growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise.  Thus, the Fed somewhat delicately has to choose between containing inflation to foster an economy based on worthless pieces of paper (the dollar) or risk raising the unemployment rate and the resulting ire of politicians.  The important concept here is that as long as the market and consumers believe that inflation is contained around 2%, then inflation will not lead to run-away inflation.  If the Fed could have an official and generally accepted inflation index that the market and the consumer have faith in, and this index just happens to track inflation at a lower rate than the actual inflation pressures in our economy, then I am sure this index would work to their benefit.  The Fed would be able to create the ‘expectation’ that inflation was contained at the unofficial sub-2% rate target, and yet let the true inflation amount act as a support to spur economic growth.  The Fed would not be forced to raise rates on a more hawkish basis because the artificial inflation number gives them some buffer, and thus the Fed prevents higher rates from potentially undermining the economy, asset prices, and job growth.  Of course, the index that helps them do this is the CPI. 

The current economic fundamentals are quite spectacular: the unemployment rate is exceptionally low, market liquidity is exceptionally high, asset prices are still high, high consumer spending is still making my jaw drop, commodity prices are high, and yet all of this is occurring with inflation somewhere around 2.4%?  I have to think that our current economy is not been sustained by 2.4% inflation but a much higher rate, perhaps around 3.0-3.5%.  This higher rate of inflation may be acceptable to the Fed, but so long as only they know it and not the market / consumer, because as I said earlier, inflation expectations can lead to higher inflation.  So perhaps we should name the CPI the “Buffer Index: Helping the Fed keep inflation expectations low when real inflation is actually higher.”

Add comment February 14th, 2007

The Market – Stock Buybacks

Stock buybacks were recently reported as $325b in 2006 vs $200b in 2004.  If you assume total market capitalization was $11 trillion in 2006, stock buybacks would represents around 2.955% of the total market value.  As I don’t have data on 2006 total share count, let’s simply assume $10 per share, or 1.1 trillion shares in the market.  Buying back $325 billion would represent 32.5 billion shares or naturally 2.95% of the share count. If you assume that the market does not increase its earnings but they keep constant at say $1.00 earnings per share before the buyback, effectively representing $1.1 trillion in earnings, once that share count falls after the buyback, you now have earnings of $1.03 per share, or an increase of around 3.04%.  So potentially more than 3% of the markets earnings growth in 2006 came simply from share buybacks and all those double-digit earnings growth rates the market has consecutively hit quarter after quarter may be more ephemeral than solid organic growth.

I think stock buybacks are a poor means of returning shareholder value.  The old argument that it spreads earnings amongst fewer shares and theoretically leads to a higher share price thus benefiting shareholders is misleading in the fact that a higher share price can quickly be lost in an irrational market or a market reacting to external circumstances such as economic and geopolitical risk (something that may be happening fairly soon).  And as an investor, I know I would prefer the cold hard feeling of cash to the feeling of the wealth effect.  I can spend $1 in cash dividend (naturally before taxes) for $1 in goods.  The wealth effect only theoretically gives me about $0.40 on that $1.00. 

The problem is, companies like stock buybacks as it improves their EPS growth rates and justifies their rampant stock option pools.  Furthermore, many companies fear that a dividend payment will create expectations of future consistent dividend payments that the company may be forced to reduce during adverse business conditions, thus engendering a public image black eye.  Frankly, I don’t believe in that theory.  I think it would be an excellent idea if more companies started adopting more dividend payment mechanisms, perhaps something like a special dividend that investors may not expect on the typical quarterly or semi-annual basis.  A special dividend might keep more investors in a stock for the long term knowing that management is going to efficiently return capital to the shareholders when the balance sheet of the company is healthy enough to do so.  Microsoft is a perfect example of a company with ample cash that decided to have a special dividend.  They may not want a regular dividend mechanism because they may not want to create an ‘income investor’ perception and risk losing their ‘growth stock’ profile.  Thus, the company could continue to manage its cash flow as needed for capex and acquisitions without having to worry about a ‘mandatory’ consistent dividend payment, and they return cash to shareholders to are patient enough to stick with the stock (thus providing a consisten and stable investor base).  That sounds so much better than a stock buyback program in which shareholder return is simply put off until tomorrow during which it will face price volatility and stock dilution (many stock buybacks are simply buying back dilutive stock options – hello Cisco).  More on that crazy charade at a later date. 

Add comment February 14th, 2007

The Market – Danger of Selling Short

I read an article today on CNBC that suggests the following:

“There also has been crafty speculation by traders in stock index futures, who bought heavily whenever the indexes turned lower and forced short-sellers to cover. Short-sellers borrow stocks and sell them, hoping to buy the shares later at a lower price and making a profit in the process.

We say “traders buying futures” assuming there is more than one trader making these buys, but some traders are actually talking about a “mysterious buyer” since the force of the buying is so narrowly targeted.”

Though I try to not be too much into conspiracy theories, I could easily see a group of powerful hedge funds playing the market technicals.  The market will definately try to take advantage of short sellers.  This is a good example of another reason why small investors should only stick to the value game. 

Add comment October 31st, 2006

The Market’s ‘One – Two Punch’ Hope

The market seems to be hoping for two trends to play out, a slowing economy that won’t slow too much, and falling inflation, due to the slowing economy, thus inducing the Fed to lower rates.  Basically, the Goldilocks scenario. But a disconnect between the Fed and the market currently exists.  The Fed seems to publicly acknowledge that the economy is slowing, but think that it will be mild and thus not enough to lower inflation.  If you listen to recent Fed policy speeches, Fed members are more concerned about the inflation threat than the slowing economy threat.  This suggests we are in a tightrope environment where expectations for a Fed rate cut are overdone.  The Fed may be in a rate holding pattern for some time, and rate cuts in January and March may seem less likely in a few months.

Add comment October 8th, 2006

Previous Posts


October 2018
« Mar    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category