MARKET FLASH:

"It seems the donkey is laughing, but he instead is braying (l'asino sembra ridere ma in realtà raglia)": si veda sotto "1927-1933: Pompous Prognosticators" per avere la conferma che la storia non si ripete ma fà la rima.


martedì 24 aprile 2018

$1B Portfolio Manager: "Tesla Reminds Me of Enron"

Montana Skeptic is a well known Tesla skeptic and short seller who writes frequently on Seeking Alpha and has over 4,000 followers. He manages a $1B+ portfolio for a family office and invests using bonds, equities, hedge funds, and private investments with a wide geographical and asset class dispersion. He has a J.D. degree from Yale Law School and he practiced for 30 years as a trial lawyer in commercial cases.

Case-Shiller Home Prices Surge At Fastest Pace Since 2014 To Record High

US National Home Prices in February are now almost 7% above the 2006 peak according to the latest Case-Shiller data and are surging at 6.8% YoY - the fastest pace since June 2014.

The data showed monthly gains in all 20 cities, including strong advances in expensive areas such as Seattle and Los Angeles, along with cheaper regions including Cleveland and Detroit.

All 20 cities in the index showed year-over-year gains, led by a 12.7 percent increase in Seattle and an 11.6 percent advance in Las Vegas; Washington was slowest at 2.4 percent

This pushed the national home price to a new record high...

"With expectations for continued economic growth and further employment gains, the current run of rising prices is likely to continue," David Blitzer, chairman of the S&P index committee, said in a statement.

Richmond Fed Survey Crashes By Most In 25 Years

When hope dies... against expectations of a small rise from March to a 16 print, April came in at a disastrous -3 (the worst data since Sept 2016).

From record highs just a couple months ago, Richmond Fed manufacturing has crashed by the most in the survey's 25 year history into contraction...

It was a bloodbath below the surface too.

New orders collapsed to -9 from +17, order backlogs plunged to -4 from +10 and while wages and employees rose, workweek dropped notably.

Finally, prices paid rose once again even as new orders crashed...

Must be the weather, right?

This Is 'Not' The Reagan Stock Market

Facts do not matter anymore.  Opinions are now facts.  We truly live in dangerous times.

Reagan And Trump Stock Market

We were stunned by an article posted on the CNBC website over the weekend, The Trump stock market looks a lot like Ronald Reagan's, Ralph Acampora says – and that may mean trouble.

Are you fricking kidding me?  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reagan market looks like the Trump market?   The Trump S&P500 is almost 40 percent above the Reagan S&P after 365 trading days from the election.

We do agree on the last part of the headline that stocks are headed for trouble, however.

Presidents And Stock Markets


JFK-Trump S&P500 Analog

Our latest venture  has been constructing and tracking the stunningly tight JFK-Trump S&P500 analog.  We did not just stumble upon the analog with a feeling or a religious epiphany, randomly deciding to "overlay two charts on top of each other" (a common criticism of analogs)  but we crunched 70 years of data searching for similar volatility shocks to the one the market experienced in early February.

We found three:  1) The Eisenhower heart attack in 1955; 2) the 1987 stock market crash, and 3) the 1962 "Kennedy Slide" or bear market.   We dismissed the Eisenhower shock as it did not even lead to an official correction, and the 1987 bear market — peak to trough — was over in just 39 days.

Is The Trump Market Similar To The Reagan Market?

Absurd. Take a look at the data in the first analog and you decide.

The JFK-Trump analog is only 84 bps points apart with respect to price-performance 365 trading days after the election whereas the Reagan-Trump analog illustrates an almost 40 percent divergence.

(Click here for interview)

We love Ralph, but we are having trouble reconciling his comments to CNBC.

"In fact, if you look at the chart you will see Ronald Reagan had a six-month honeymoon.  It lasted…I think the percentage gain was roughly about ten percent." – Ralph Acampora

Ralph seems to refer to the Dow instead of the S&P, so we included it in the analog.

As the chart illustrates, Reagan's S&P500 peaked 18 days after election day, rising 8.9 percent bolstered by the surprise November 4th electoral landslide.  The S&P then fell 27.15 percent over the next 430 trading days, bottoming on August 12, 1982.

The Reagan bull market ignited that August day, taking the S&P500 up over 61 percent through 1983 and 179.86 percent by the end of his two terms.

Much of the stock volatility during the first 18 months of Mr. Reagan's first term was due to very tight monetary policy, a deep recession, and volatile interest rates.

On election day, for example, the yield on the 10-year was 12.46 percent.  The yield continued to rise, finally peaking at 15.84 percent on September 30, 1981, almost a year before the economy emerged from recession and the August 1982 stock market bottom.

Reagan's Tailwinds, Trump's Headwinds

We posted a piece in December 2016 comparing the macro initial conditions between the Reagan and Trump administrations on the eve of their presidencies,  Reagan v Trump Macro Initial Conditions, listing several indicators,  including monetary, oil prices, and demographics.  Our conclusion was a Reagan-like bull market is very unlikely during Trump's tenure.

President Reagan also got his recession out of the way early in his administration

Segue To North Korea

Finally, this exercise reminds me of conversations I have had with friends about the upcoming U.S.-North Korea summit.  As you have probably read, we are worried the U.S. is going to be played by the NorKo's and Chinese like the dueling banjos in Deliverance.

What always comes up is whether President Trump's hardline and bluster toward Kim Young Un has worked and brought North Korea to the table.   I have tried to present the facts, as, say, a CIA desk officer at the U.S. embassy in South Korea (still without an U.S. Ambassador, BTW) would.

Sure, I have my biases and confess I'm not a big fan of President Trump's policies or his behavior.

But here are the facts:

In the first eleven months of the Trump Administration, the North Koreans engaged in twenty missile tests, some nuclear,  compared to only eight during the entire two terms of President Obama.

During Trump's first year in office, North Korea conducted more than twice as many ballistic missile tests (20) as it did during the first year of Barack Obama's presidency (8).  – Foreign Affairs

I maintain the president's bluster and the painting of many red lines baited Kim into mocking and ultimately crossing them, twenty times, to be exact.  Two of the six missiles fired by the North Koreans over Japan occurred in 2017.

It was during these last missile and weapons tests,  North Korea probably obtained their big nuke and ICBM delivery system.

Kim is now finally prepared for nuclear chastity.  That is after the hermit kingdom has lost its thermonuclear virginity.

North Korea has promised to end all its atomic and missile tests – but experts warned last night that the dramatic pledge may mean the rogue state has already perfected its nuclear weapons system.

Dictator Kim Jong Un's surprise announcement comes prior to a planned summit with President Donald Trump next month.

But while some have greeted the offer as a welcome sign of peace, a leading ex-CIA analyst said the Communist despot may have already achieved his ambition of creating a weapons system capable of hitting any target in the US. – Daily Mail

North Korea now comes to the table stronger than ever and most likely with some sort of secret deal in pocket with the Chinese.

Without equivocating, it's fair to say that both the declarations on nuclear testing and on halting the tests of ICBMs are significant concessions. Specifically, Kim announced that North Korea will "discontinue nuclear testing" and that the Punggye-ri site will be "dismantled to transparently guarantee the discontinuance of the nuclear test [sic]." On ICBMs, Kim simply said that no "inter-continental ballistic rocket test-fire" would take place after April 21, 2018.

While significant, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that these concessions are being made out of a position of weakness or as a necessary show of bona fide goodwill to South Korea and the United States before the upcoming summits. Kim's rationale for doing away with the nuclear test site was to underline that North Korea had already successfully come up with the nuclear weapons designs it needed. – Daily Beast

There were many articles over the weekend on the wisdom of even holding the summit.

 White House privately skeptical of North Korea's plans to freeze nuclear testing  – Washington Post

Mr. Kim's moves are also unsettling officials in the U.S., Japan and China. Some suspect he is merely posturing in advance of the meeting, as well as before a separate one with South Korea's president. Others worry that his gestures could put Mr. Trump on the defensive in the grinding negotiations over the future of North Korea's nuclear weapons.  – NY Times

Trump tempers expectations on North Korea  – Politico

Both leaders go into the meeting leader that are impulsive, unprepared, and the U.S. is way understaffed in its expertise and professional diplomatic corps.

Moreover, both sides don't even seem to be in the same zip code in terms of perspective, motive, and expectations.

The North Koreans seem to believe that their nuclear breakthroughs forced Mr. Trump to accede to a leaders' summit meeting, something they have long desired as a way to prove themselves a peer of the major powers.

But American officials have said Mr. Kim was the one forced to the table, compelled there by American sanctions and military threats.

North Korea's statements suggests that the country sees itself as on the verge of forcing the world to accept it as it is, finally securing its long-term survival.
– NY Times 

Let's just say we are not expecting a Reagan-Gorbachev breakthrough.

By the way,  our friends seem to think Trump deserves the Nobel Prize based on their feelings, fantasies,  and the spin that is swirling about the ether and Twittersphere.

We sincerely hope they are correct,  but we fear disaster based on our observation of the facts.  Both sides are about to engage in a high-wire act without a safety net.

Has the market priced the risk?

And the Reagan stock market is the Trump stock market.

10Y Treasury Yield Tops 3.00% For First Time Since Jan 2014, Curve Flattening Continues

Despite near-record speculative positioning short Treasuries across the curve...

Yields are rising, and rising fast with 10Y breaking  the 3.00% Maginot Line for the first time since January 2014...

After not quite getting there yesterday, today's selling finally pushed the 10Y over the level...

Meanwhile, 2Y Yields topped 2.5% - the highest since Sept 2008

Investors haven't been this pessimistic on benchmark U.S. Treasuries since February's sell-off in equities.

And as Bloomberg reports, fund managers who need to insulate their bond portfolios from higher yields are having to pay a stiffer premium for puts over calls now than at the start of the year.

For now, bond yields are running ahead of Jeff Gundlach's favorite indicator (Copper/Gold)...

But amid all the panic about rising bond yields... the yield curve continues to flatten on the day...

 

lunedì 23 aprile 2018

Commodities Crumble After US Says It May Ease Rusal Sanctions

That didn't take long: just one day after we reported that "in a surprise twist", most of Europe was pushing the Trump administration to ease Russian sanctions due to growing concerns of stagflation and outright recession should supply chains remain crippled, on Monday morning the US appears to have caved, and in a notice the Treasury announced it would provide sanctions relief to the world's largest aluminum maker outside of China, United Co. Rusal, if Oleg Deripaska relinquishes control and sells his controlling stake, while extended the deadline for companies to wind down dealings with Russian aluminum producer.

In the notice, the Treasury said that for Rusal, "the path for the United States to provide sanctions relief is through divestment and relinquishment of control of Rusal by Oleg Deripaska."

"Rusal has felt the impact of U.S. sanctions because of its entanglement with Oleg Deripaska, but the U.S. government is not targeting the hardworking people who depend on Rusal and its subsidiaries," the statement added.

In a separate statement, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the U.S. said it was considering a petition from Rusal to remove it from the sanctions list.

The Treasury also issued a new general license, extending the period during which companies may continue to trade with Rusal to October 23; the notice is below:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today issued General License 14 in the Ukraine-/Russia-related sanctions program.

General License 14 authorizes U.S. persons to engage in specified transactions related to winding down or maintaining business with United Company RUSAL PLC (RUSAL) and its subsidiaries until October 23, 2018.  In accordance with preexisting OFAC guidance, OFAC will not impose secondary sanctions on non-U.S. persons for engaging in the same activity involving RUSAL or its subsidiaries that General License 14 authorizes U.S. persons to engage in.

"RUSAL has felt the impact of U.S. sanctions because of its entanglement with Oleg Deripaska, but the U.S. government is not targeting the hardworking people who depend on RUSAL and its subsidiaries," said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "RUSAL has approached us to petition for delisting.  Given the impact on our partners and allies, we are issuing a general license extending the maintenance and wind-down period while we consider RUSAL's petition." 

In addition to General License 14, today OFAC also published several FAQs regarding to the general license's authorizations and limitations, and issued an amended General License 12A.
On April 6, 2018, OFAC designated RUSAL for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, EN+ Group.  In that same action, OFAC designated EN+ Group for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, Oleg Deripaska and other entities he owns or controls.  RUSAL is based in the Bailiwick of Jersey and is one of the world's largest aluminum producers.

"If it wasn't previously clear if Rusal will still be sanctioned in case if Deripaska sells out, now we have a clear answer," Oleg Petropavlovskiy, an analyst at BCS Global Markets, told Bloomberg. "Changing the ownership structure would be a solution."

As Bloomberg adds, the U.S. statement will add pressure on the aluminum magnate as he seeks a way to save his company without surrendering control. While analysts have suggested that nationalization may be the only solution, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told reporters Friday that Rusal was not on the list to be nationalized.

As a result of what appears to be a sudden thaw in relations, and an ease in US sentiment toward Russia and Rusal - which produces 6% of the world's aluminum and operates mines, smelters and refineries across the world from Guinea to Ireland, Russia to Jamaica - and thus a first step in the removal of Russian sanctions, aluminum prices crashed, tumbling over 8%% after the news, the biggest drop in 13 years in London...

... while oil was also sharply lower, some 1.5% down on the report.

The news has also dragged the 10Y back to unchanged on the day, last trading at 2.965%, down from a session high of 2.996%.

"The Markets Are Speaking And No One Is Listening"

The Markets Are Speaking and No One Is Listening

It almost never works out when commentators assure us this week or next week will be the big one. All will be revealed. Then we move on to the next hugest event. Which goes to show, with many exceptions, that it's usually the surprises that pack the most bang for the buck. They haven't been analyzed to death with all the reasons at the ready to explain any deviations from forecast to be trotted out. If there wasn't weather, we'd have to invent it.

So, fully aware that I'll no doubt regret it, we are in for a very interesting patch. With, as far as I can see, an awful lot of traders ignoring the price action in favor of the preferred narrative. And resolutely positioned against what seems the pull of the tides. An unusually resolute stance in a year when things have been going merely so so for asset managers. I can only surmise that being "flexible" hasn't worked to plan so traders are choosing to stand their ground. Good luck with that.

There's no arguing that the world has plenty of problems to go around. But the not even dead-cat bounce in equities, emerging markets or the likes of the Australian dollar from headlines about Treasury Secretary Mnuchin considering a trip to China to work on trade differences and China cautiously welcoming the gesture shouldn't be ignored. Positioning is working against traders right across the board. And looking at the charts, stale positions, which are growing not shrinking, are not on the side of the path of least resistance.

Take CFTC positioning with a grain of salt. Especially if you only look at the top line. But it struck me that with all the news flow, geopolitical and relative monetary policy related, the dollar short position increased last week. Yet you don't have to be a dollar bull to wonder why. The dollar index isn't out of the woods, but support levels look a lot clearer than resistance. The more inclusive Bloomberg dollar index paints a similar but even more constructive picture. Even the supposedly impregnable emerging market currency indexes are noticeably sagging.

The euro and yen, both of whose central banks have meetings this week are giving a wonderful presentation of currencies looking to probe their downside. Yet there's no shortage of wishful thinkers opining on "someday when they get going."

The S&P 500 future last week tried and failed to surmount resistance marginally above 2700. Don't dismiss the protective reaction functions but we know now the clearly defined topside challenge. Which as of last week became even more formidable. And watch the ever creeping higher and much ballyhooed 200-day moving average. Eventually the ever- hopeful earnings season will begin to wind down. It's one thing to challenge support on a headline. Another if it happens just because.

As for bonds, using an investment thesis of, it has to stop somewhere, is a very QE view of the world. Several times over the weekend, I read about bond vigilantes. I reject the characterization. The sellers who have driven yields to multi- year highs aren't protesting monetary and fiscal policy developments. They are embracing them.

Trading off news is what we do. Trading off the sheer weight of flows, however is the better way to make money.

"The Big Fear today Is "Liquidity" – What Happens If We Do Get A Meltdown?"

"Time you straighten right out, better think of the future, else you'll wind up in jail."

This morning we are all "cautiously optimistic", apparently

The world reminds me of a duck: Serene and calm(ish) on the surface. Paddling furiously under the water. That's one way to picture the current round of geopolitical manoeuvring across Asia: China-Japan, US-Korea, China-US dialogs. Forget the Trump noise, but these discussions are likely to lead to new dynamic across Asia.. If the outcome of the current games are as positive as we expect/hope, then the prospects for the global economy are pretty solid. Ducks can pivot on a heart-beat! Over the next 10-years or so we expect to see South-East Asia's middle classes grow from around 600mm to over 2 billion – that's an enormous market to sell into. It will be ripe with opportunity – and we have ideas, but not without challenge.

Much of what we see on the news, and read on the wires is just NOISE. It's getting more confusing as twitterfeeds, fake-news, and rogue media provide more information than analysts can analyse to strip facts from the sturm-et-drang of "click-bait". Noise can cause markets to go up, down, sideways and shake-it-all-about – but within the noise are clear trends. Some negative, some positive. Much to our surprise – like what's happening in Asia -some of the noise is far more positive than we expected!  

This morning I'm tempted to check some of the stuff I'm reading about Macron.. comparing himself to Trump seems a mistake of the first-egg, but hey-ho! As for the UK – the less said about our sorry excuse for government.. the better. They've dug themselves into a horrible mess over Windrush…. But I'm afraid it could get worse. As the blame game deepens, the Conservatives unerring ability to do the wrong thing is coming to the fore. Apologise Now! Put right the wrongs that have been done to our citizens, and then do the decent thing by resigning. End of.

Noise can be the small stuff – like an article that flashes up quoting a "reputable" investment manager trashing the outlook for a particular stock. It gets whooshed round the market as "click-bait": with everyone reading it, sagely agreeing and the stock plummets. Few folk bother to check the facts: that the article first appeared in some meaningless rag somewhere obscure, or the supposedly "reputable" investor actually runs a $100k "hedge fund" from his garage. Its news and views and gets read no matter how wrong it is. (Sorry if this reads like Fake-News 101 to millennials who understand modern media..!)

At the other end of the scale is Big Noise. A good example is Oil. We've collectively bought into three big arguments over the past few years: i) the collapse of the oil monopoly (the increasing irrelevance of OPEC), ii) the US becoming the swing producer likely to constrain prices when shale/fracking kicks in at, say, £50. iii) Oil is no longer such an important commodity as the big carbon shift continues. Our conclusion was oil prices are likely to remain lower into perpetuity. That ignores the dynamics– we've absorbed most of the floating oil glut of excess stocks, demand is rising in line with economic growth and cheap oil, the swing producer is more than happy to produce, and the dynamics of Russia/Saudi oil have surprised us by becoming a fixed market feature. Folk need Oil. Higher oil prices, and a good example of how the NOISE led most of us to expect something utterly different.

Which leads us to this morning's conundrum – where are markets going? We have two things worrying us:

  • Stock Markets look due a correction – they've wobbled along this year, and the noise from pundits saying they look overvalued and need a price correction is thunderous. Yet, we've still got solid company results coming in, and an economic environment that feels solid (although more tenuous to perceive 18 months down the road.)
  • Bond markets remain overly tight – spreads between asset classes and risk look implausibly tight, get continue to ratchet in. At some point risk vs return has to be considered, yet default rates remain low.

We're all aware why markets are so tight. Too much money chasing assets as a result of unconventional monentary policy – QE? (I still reckon there is an enormous bill coming our way when we experience the unintended consequences and lashback of QE – but that's a story for another morning….) Or is due to yield tourists rolling down the risk curve in search of higher returns in assets the don't properly understand? Or is it the number of asset bubbles; like tech valuations, Fin-tech, cryptocurrencies etc that look ripe to burst?

All these things worry and concern asset managers. The big fear I'm hearing today is "liquidity" – what happens if we do get a market meltdown, bond and stock markets take a knock and we see the kind of market suspension we had in 2008? Investment managers will always tell you they are long-term investors – while keeping a time frame of a few days if markets look likely to go up/down (because that's how their bosses measure them!).

Liquidity is whatever someone else is prepared to pay for your asset. In times of market dislocation its bound to be wide. Perhaps a better answer is not to worry about it – but choose the assets that are not only defensive, but most likely to simply get wet when the rains come and dry off quickly thereafter? Thinking back to the great bond rout of 2008 – most of the bonds that crashed far below 100 par as a result of liquidity being switched off, rose back very quickly as markets recovered.

Therefore: pick assets with duck like characteristics. They will get wet when the storm comes, but will shake their feathers remaining dry, warm and snug when the sun comes out again.. Not quite so sure about the legions of triple BBB issuers and inflated stock prices..  but…

And finally, my contribution to the "Click-Bait" world. Listening to my teenage nephews and nieces (plus my own millennials) at my parent's Diamond Wedding party, I'm seriously worried about Facebook. They've already made up their minds… they understand stuff I just don't….