Du er her: Forside > In the pit - Oslo Børs > USA - DOW JONES - SP500 - NAS - NR 77
USA - DOW JONES - SP500 - NAS - NR 77
Beins
20:29 16.02.2018
#11682

I sosialøkonomien lærte vi at koplingene mellom pengepolitikken og realøkonomien skjer via renten.
Målet med den veldige pengetrykkingen i QE var å få ned renten til bunnnivå, spesielt de langsiktige rentene. Dette skulle stimulere forbruk og låneopptak og redusere sparingen.

Nå er det på tide med reversering mener sentralbankene. Det skyldes den sterkere veksten i økonomien som man nå ser i en selvdrevet fase der stimulanser blr mindre viktig. Bemerk dog Trumps skattepakke som higlander kommenterer. Rente og likviditet er to sider av samme sak. Dersom det mangler likviditet, vil renten gå mye opp fordi låneetterspørselen overstiger lånetilbudet.

Dersom sentralbanken selger rentepapirer eller ikke fornyer rentepapirer som forfaller, vil det trekke likviditet ut av markedet og sende renten noe opp. Dette er et vanlig kortsiktig virkemiddel i pengepolitikken, kalt markedsoperasjoner. Men under QE-perioden skjedde det i ekspansiv regi i et voldsomt omfang. Erfaringsmessig må mengdene være store for at dette skal påvirke renten utover det marginale.

Vestlige sentralbanker styres ut fra et inflasjonsmål, og vil tilpasse sin qe-reversing til dette. Økonomisk vekst vil da ha, men ikke så sterk at man får en inflasjonsspiral.

Pointet mitt er vel at renteoppgang kommer pent og pyntelig - og forutsetter at den økonomiske veksten ikke svekker seg, noe som ellers vil bringe inflasjonen under målet på 2,0 % (de fleste land ligger der). En lavere inflasjon vil på nytt trekke rentene nedover og krever mer ekspansive tiltak fra sentralbanken. Om ikke alltid massiv QE, så i hvert fall lavere rente på sentralbankens utlån til bankene.

God økonomisk vekst pleier å være bra for aksjekursene, selv om renten skulle stige noe. Earnings kan gå opp.
highlander
01:47 17.02.2018
#8301

Slik sluttet Wall Street på fredag:

Dow 25,219.38 19.01 0.08%
S&P 500 2,732.22 1.02 0.04%
Nasdaq 7,239.47 -16.96 -0.23%

Markedene er litt slitne nå...?
Beins
17:04 17.02.2018
#11683

Uken som gikk var iflg avisene den sterkeste på DOW og SPX siden 2011.
Nå var fredagen noe turbulent etter tidvis god stigning - det kan ha sammenheng med den negative divergensen i kortsiktig RSI-chart som nå er eliminert, jfr min #11679.

Caldaros "ukeslutt"-vurdering er klart positiv da han ser et sterkt BUY-signal i indeksene - et empirisk signal (WROC) som han hevder har 96% treffrate. Caldaro mener SPX kan gå over 3000 poeng dersom oppgangen i første del blir ganske bratt - slik vi har sett siden 2533. Vi kan få en antydning om dette utover i neste uke. Dog hører pull backs alltid med. Mandag er det stengt på US-børsene.

I kommentarfeltet er meningene delte, noe tror på et "leg" til nedover i en større A-B-C formasjon der vi nå er på vei opp en periode (B). Mens en legende, Cygnet Noir, som har en merkelig evne til å treffe skarpe svingninger, ser en Big UP i chartet. Han har et kortsiktig kursmål på 2915 fram til april.

Endret 17.02.2018 17:18 av Beins
highlander
11:46 20.02.2018
#8313

Jada, avisene pekte på den sterkeste oppturen siden 2011, uken etter et kraftig fall. Dette er slik jeg ser det bare en rekyl på nedturen som har startet.

Denne "Cygnet Noir" er kanskje en som alltid er bullish? Har han noen gang "spådd" nedgang? Lett å bli geniforklart om man utelukkende er positiv i et bullmarked som har vart i flere år.

I motsetning til i "resultatsesonger" tidligere i oppgangsperioden med gjennomgående bedre tall enn forventet, har jeg fra min begrensede Havanna-linje inntrykk av at flere selskaper har levert dårligere tall enn forventet for fjerde kvartal.

Dette sier meg at inntjeningsestimatene må nedjusteres for flere selskaper. Dette skjer altså samtidig med at P/E i utgangspunktet var relativt høy, og det i tillegg må prises inn høyere rente.

Superoptimistene som utelukkende baserer seg på tekniske finurligheter vil slite etter hvert...

Endret 20.02.2018 22:22 av highlander
Beins
14:28 20.02.2018
#11691

Status per 16.02. Ser ganske bra ut mht Earnings

• Earnings Scorecard: For Q4 2017 (with 80% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter), 75% of S&P 500 companies have reported positive EPS surprises and 78% have reported positive sales surprises. If 78% is the final number for the quarter, it will mark the highest percentage since FactSet began tracking this metric in Q3 2008.

• Earnings Growth: For Q4 2017, the blended earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 is 15.2%. If 15.2% is the final number for
the quarter, it will mark the highest earnings growth since Q3 2011 (16.8%).

• Earnings Revisions: On December 31, the estimated earnings growth rate for Q4 2017 was 11.0%. Nine sectors have
higher growth rates today (compared to December 31) due to upward revisions to estimates and positive earnings surprises.

• Earnings Guidance: For Q1 2018, 40 S&P 500 companies have issued negative EPS guidance and 39 S&P 500 companies have issued positive EPS guidance.

• Valuation: The forward 12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is 17.1. This P/E ratio is above the 5-year average (16.0) and above the 10-year average (14.3).

https://insight.factset.com/hubfs/Resources%20Section/Research%20Desk/Earnings%20Insight/EarningsInsight_021618.pdf

Cygnet Noir skriver ikke ofte på Caldaro-bloggen, han er ganske selektiv med sine tips. Men blir tatt på alvor når han først kommer med en 'Big Up' eller 'Big Down'.

På Caldaro-bloggen er det to syn - de som tror vi har en rekyl før videre fall, og de som tror bunnen er nådd og på ny oppgang. Jeg håper på ny oppgang, men klart at man skal være forsiktig med å være for skråsikker i aksjemarkedet. I dag går det mot negativ åpning, men ikke mer enn at det kan være en teknisk reaksjon etter bra oppgang. Foreløpig ikke noen 'Big Down'.

Endret 20.02.2018 14:29 av Beins
highlander
22:31 20.02.2018
#8315

Slik sluttet Wall Street i kveld:

Dow 24,964.75 -254.63 -1.01%
S&P 500 2,716.26 -15.96 -0.58%
Nasdaq 7,234.31 -5.16 -0.07%
yemaya 2
00:53 21.02.2018
#8987

Ned i dag og opp i morgen.
Jeg er 50& cash fordi jeg ikke kan se fremtiden i et klart lys, men jeg leter etter raske gevinster med de ledige kontanter.
highlander
08:56 21.02.2018
#8317

Re. Beins #11691

"Positive sales" forekommer noe oftere enn "positive EPS", eksempelvis hadde Wallmart i går "positive sales", men aksjen stupte over 10 % pga elendig bunnlinje:

Wallmart leverte en omsetning i fjerde kvartal på 136,26 milliarder dollar, noe som er en oppgang på 4,1 prosent fra samme periode året før, og litt bedre enn analytikerne ventet ifølge CNBC. Selskapet hadde en vekst i butikkene på 2,6 prosent og netthandelen økte med 23 prosent.

Økte utgifter førte til at driftsresultatet falt med 28 prosent til 4,47 milliarder dollar. På bunnlinjen satt selskapet igjen med 2,18 milliarder dollar, noe som er 42,1 prosent lavere enn i samme periode året før.

For øvrig er gjelden i ferd med å bli dyrere å betjene for den amerikanske staten, også på de kortere lånene:

Tirsdag hentet staten inn 179 milliarder dollar i lån og måtte betale renter på lånene med tre og seks måneders varighet som de ikke har betalt siden 2008, ifølge Bloomberg.

Renten på lånet på tre måneder havnet på 1,64 prosent, mens lånet på seks måneder ble 1,82 prosent.

I tillegg ble det tatt opp et lån med to års varighet som fikk en rente på 2,255 prosent. (Kilde: CNBC, Bloomberg, E24)


Re. yemaya 2

Høres ut som en fornuftig strategi det. Vurderer selv korte klipp med ledig kapital etter at jeg endelig er tilbake i gamlelandet og får fulgt markedet tettere, men er veldig forsiktig...

Endret 21.02.2018 08:57 av highlander
highlander
13:21 21.02.2018
#8328

Fra MarketWatch i dag - og her kommer poengene i Highlander#8272 [15.02.2018 13:40] tydelig frem:

Opinion: The stock market faces a massive headwind in 2018 — a lack of new money

Higher interest rates and the end of central bank stimulus will stall the market’s advance this year



Did the stock market care about higher interest rates in 2017? No.

But, clearly, the market does care this year — at least sometimes — so that begs the question: Is there any material difference between market conditions in 2018 and in 2017? And if there is a difference, why did higher rates suddenly become important?

First things first: The fed funds rate doubled between March and December 2017, so rates did increase last year, but no one cared enough, and the market moved up in a straight line. The S&P 500 Index SPX returned 22% last year.

This year the mere talk of higher rates is causing concern, and reasonably the rate increases could be reaching a tipping point. But there’s a much more important culprit to these changing market conditions.

Supply and demand
Stock market levels are premised on one thing, and one thing only. That’s the simple concept of supply and demand. Earnings do not matter, inflation does not matter, politics do not matter and the level of interest rates does not matter. All that matters is supply and demand.

Rightfully, those above-mentioned ancillary variables can affect supply or demand, so they can play a role. But it all boils down to supply — how much money is out there buying stocks — versus demand — how many people are selling.

To measure supply and demand in the stock market, we compare buyers to sellers. If there are more buyers out there, the market will increase regardless of the ancillary variables, and in 2017 there were more buyers than there are in 2018.

Before I continue, there are natural cycles when buyers outpace sellers for periods of time, or when sellers outpace buyers. I defined this as the Investment Rate in 2002, and back-tested the model to 1900. It measured all longer-term cycles in U.S. history in terms of new money, or new demand.

New money
Ultimately, the measure of stock market supply and demand is premised on new money. A buyer who is buying a stock using proceeds from a sale of stock does not positively impact demand because the sale offsets the demand. Another way of saying this is that you cannot churn old money and expect markets to grow. That means new money matters most.

The Investment Rate measures natural changes to new money inflows using a derivative demographic analysis with integrated societal norms, but it is not the only measure of new money.

Central bank stimulus
The Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) were the second source of new demand for the past five years. The asset purchases they made came from a theoretical printing press. There was nothing natural about those asset-purchase programs, but still they brought a new buyer to the table.

Therefore, there are two things that need to be added together to define new money: the Investment Rate plus central bank stimulus.

Importantly, for the past five years the Investment Rate (IR) has been declining, which has only happened twice before in history. The IR declined between 1928-1938 and 1969-1981. These periods were otherwise known as the Great Depression and stagflation. The rate of change in new money declined every year during those periods. Over the past five years the IR has declined more than in either of those periods, suggesting natural new money demand is declining.

What’s new now
However, central bank asset purchases have been like clockwork for five years, and the impact on new money demand by this non-natural source was significant, until now.

In January the combined asset purchase program of the Fed and ECB was slashed, and it no longer significantly skews the natural demand levels identified by the Investment Rate. The reason this market seems to care about higher rates, and other things it did not care about last year, is that the fake money is almost completely dried up. When new money demand declines significantly, as it has, things that did not matter before start to matter again.

Endret 21.02.2018 13:27 av highlander
Beins
16:02 21.02.2018
#11693

highlander

Sales overrasker noe mer enn EPS, riktig, det var +75% på EPS og +78% på sales.
Walmart tror jeg har disse utfordringene med overgangen til netthandel, og det gir utslag på bunnlinjen. Slike omstillinger koster noe å gjennomføre. men dette er sektorpreget.

Mht pengemengde og aksjekurser, har jeg kommentert det tidligere, så vi får se hva som skjer.

Denne grafen tror jeg viser den breieste definisjonen av pengemengden. De smalere M1 og M2 har økt hele tida.



I samfunnsøkonomien legger man nå mer vekt på bankenes pengsskapende evne, siden pengene nå eksisterer primært i form av elektroniske penger. Dermed kan bankvesenet selv bidra til økt pengemengde. De kan gi boliglån uten å ha pengene på utlån fra sentralbanken o.l.

.
highlander
23:03 21.02.2018
#8330

Herlig selloff før Wall Street stengte onsdag, etter at oksene yppet seg store deler av dagen:

Dow 24,797.78 -166.97 -0.67%
S&P 500 2,701.33 -14.93 -0.55%
Nasdaq 7,218.23 -16.08 -0.22%
highlander
23:09 21.02.2018
#8331

...og det er ytterligere nedside på grunn av dette:

MarketWatch: 30-year Treasury bond yield hits highest since 2015 as Fed highlights inflation risk

Treasury yields rose Wednesday after the Federal Reserve released the minutes from its January monetary-policy meeting.

The central bank said it saw muted risks of the economy overheating even as senior Fed officials appeared to raise the outlook for stronger inflationary pressures.

How are bonds performing?
The rate for the 30-year bond TMUBMUSD30Y, +2.07% , or long bond, climbed 6.9 basis points to 3.223%, its highest yield since June 2015.

The two-year note yield TMUBMUSD02Y, +0.09% the most sensitive to the vagaries of interest-rate expectations, was up 4.3 basis points to 2.270%, marking its seventh straight day of yield gains. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note TMUBMUSD10Y, +2.13% , meanwhile, was up by 4.8 basis points to 2.943%, its highest since January 2014.

Bond prices and yields move in the opposite direction.

What’s driving the market?
The Fed’s minutes from the two-day January meeting were read as hawkish by market participants as senior Fed officials said the outlook for stronger growth this year suggested “further” rate hikes were in the cards. Central bankers raised the risk of inflation heading higher, giving long-dated yields the room to run higher. Price pressures tend to be bearish for bonds as they can erode the value of fixed-interest payments.

The minutes comes amid heightened fears that the central bank would be forced to hike rates at a more rapid clip than analysts are currently pricing in — possibly four rather than three rate increases in 2018. A projection of interest-rate forecasts by Fed members, known as the dot plot, implies three rate increases this year.

Investors have been on edge about rising interest rates since the jobs report for January showed that wages rose at the fastest pace since 2009, and a recent reading of consumer prices, the consumer-price index, showed a rise of 2.1% over a 12 month period ending in January.

Against that backdrop, rates have been marching higher amid an expected onslaught of bond auctions, which can have the effect of exacerbating yield moves. The Treasury Department will auction off $29 billion of seven-year notes on Thursday. The sales are slightly larger in accordance with February’s refunding announcement.

Expectations for greater issuance to fund the government’s spending plan have played a part in driving bond prices lower and yields higher.

Those worries center on the view that the bond market is ill-prepared to absorb an increase in debt sales as the Fed unwinds its multitrillion-dollar balance sheet.

What are strategists saying?
“I think that to me this is a hand off from the doves to the hawks. The key phrase here in the minutes was that the Fed thinks the risk of inflation was creeping higher,” said Tom di Galoma, managing director of Treasurys trading at Seaport Global Securities.

“To the extent the Fed allows inflation to rise, long-term bond investors should be compensated for that,” said Charlie Ripley, senior investment strategist for Allianz Investment management.

What data and Fed speakers are in focus?
Existing-home sales ran at annual pace of 5.38 million in January, 4.8% lower than a year ago, its fastest annual decline in more than three years. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast a 5.59 million annual pace.

Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, a non-voting member, said the central bank should not respond to swings in market volatility. Meanwhile, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said the Fed should raise rates at a gradual pace.

Endret 21.02.2018 23:09 av highlander
yemaya 2
23:29 21.02.2018
#8990

Hvorfor kaller du selloffen ''herlig''?
Selv om du har kjøpt bearfond så må du ikke glemme at de fleste av dine kunder sitter long.
Beins
23:52 21.02.2018
#11696

Sell off? Vel, dette var ganske pyntelige greier, ikke noen Big down foreløpig. Dagens bilde passer både i en oppgangs- og en nedgangsprediksjon. Caldaro er nå ganske innstilt på oppgang i sitt oppdaterte chart.

Rentedebatten i USA er delvis knyttet til Trumps skattereform som gir svære underskudd på Statsbudsjettet, faktisk opp mot 5,5% av BNP - i en oppgangskonjunktur. Det er i strid med alle lærebøker å legge opp et så ekspansivt budsjett i denne fasen. Hva skal man gjøre når nedturen kommer og gjelda er skyhøy allerede?
USA bruker sin rolle som hjemland til verdens reservevaluta til å finansiere store underskudd ved hjelp av nye bonds.

Med økende etterspørsel og vekst klart over trend, vil USA s økonomi stramme seg mer til og inflasjonspresset kan øke. Men som vi og ser, kan bedriftene plassere mer kapital i andre land og ikke ansette dyrere arbeidskraft hjemme - de struper den såkalte Phillipskurven som fungerer dårligere nå grunnet globaliseringen, spesielt i USA der lønningene vokser mye saktere enn i tidligere oppgangsperioder. Det er gunstig for Earnings. Så arbeiderne bør kjøpe aksjer, dersom de har råd. USA håper og på teknologiske gjennombrudd som bidrag mot inflasjonspress.

Endret 21.02.2018 23:54 av Beins
yemaya 2
00:19 22.02.2018
#8991

Herlig at det var ganske pyntelig mener jeg.
highlander
09:54 22.02.2018
#8335

Uttrykket "selloff" må ses i sammenheng med at Wall Street snudde fra en overraskende pluss til en brukbar nedgang på slutten av dagen, og fortsatt fall i etterhandelen.

Når man har tatt en posisjon, samt begrunnet valget, og markedskreftene viste at man tok midlertidig feil, var det "herlig" å se at posisjonen snudde fra en (enda større) minus tidlig på dagen til tilnærmet break even på tampen av dagen. Årsaken til at break even-nivået allerede er nådd er dollarstyrkelsen, da prisen på SPXS fortsatt har en nominell nedgang siden ervervelsen.

Det blir veldig spennende å følge USA-børsens ferd videre.
highlander
10:08 22.02.2018
#8336

...og for øvrig teller jeg veldig på knappene hva jeg skal gjøre i forhold til bjørnefondet...

Er veldig usikker mht videre retning - og volatiliteten er fortsatt meget høy. Superoptimistene får ikke rett før børsene går i nye topper med bekreftede brudd - de har foreløpig ikke vært i nærheten, og noe bearmarked blir det heller ikke før børsene eventuelt går under bunnivåene fra et par uker siden.

Så i stor grad avhengig av hva som skjer i USA i kveld, blir det for min del enten realisasjon på break even, med gevinst ellers så velger jeg å sitte videre.

Endret 22.02.2018 11:06 av highlander
highlander
11:24 22.02.2018
#8339

Litt på siden, men morsom lesning på MarketWatch:

Here’s the truth about stock market volatility that investors don’t want to admit

Computers aren’t to blame for dizzying swings



If you blame computers for the market’s recent volatility, it’s just blaming the messenger for bearing bad news.

That’s because computers are doing what their human programmers have instructed them to do. Computers may be quicker and more efficient than humans, but they only do what they’re told. By blaming them, investors avoid focusing on the truth of the matter — and how to handle it properly.

These at least are the conclusions I reached after interviewing Lawrence Tint, chairman of Quantal, a risk-management firm for institutional investors, and until 2000, U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares BLK.

Tint says the panicked selling of recent sessions can be explained by investors engaging in what they always do after a long bull market: Unaccustomed to losses, they sell at the first sign of trouble. “I am not aware of anything happening in the market over the last two weeks that wouldn’t otherwise be happening even without computers,” he said.

To more fully understand Tint’s argument, it’s helpful to differentiate between three major ways in which computers are being used to execute trades on Wall Street:

1. High-frequency trading: This refers to computers front-running large trades they know are about to be executed. If a computer receives information that a sell order for a large amount of a given stock is about to hit the market, for example, and if it has a super-fast connection to the exchanges, the computer will try to sell first. When the stock subsequently falls as that large sell order hits the market, the computer can cover its short at a lower price.

The typical holding period of one of these trades is less than one second. Tint allows that high-frequency trading could be leading to some increased volatility over the short-term among individual stocks, but not at the level of the overall market.

2. Algorithmic trading: Many commentators incorrectly call any computer trading algorithmic trading, on the theory that computer software contains algorithms. But that is technically incorrect, according to Tint. Algorithmic trading actually refers to computer-executed strategies for buying or selling large blocks of stocks over time in small batches. The incentive to engage in such trading is to minimize the market impact that would otherwise accompany trying to execute a large trade all at once. If algorithmic trading is causing the market to decline, Tint points out, then the blame is on the institution that wants to sell its block rather than the computer that is executing that sale.

3. Computer trading: This refers to using a computer to execute a particular trading strategy. Take momentum, a strategy that has been around for a lot longer than computers; it calls for buying the stocks that have performed the best in the recent past and avoiding those with the worst performance. A computer can process the myriad necessary calculations quickly and efficiently, and then execute the recommended trades, but there’s nothing the computer would be doing that a follower of the momentum strategy wouldn’t be doing anyway without a computer — except more slowly.

It’s this third category of trading that theoretically could have the biggest impact on market volatility, according to Tint, since computers can’t exercise any judgment or apply a reality check to the trades that programmers have instructed them to execute. But notice carefully that such trading can’t explain recent volatility, since successive big down days where investors piled on the selling had already occurred.

Put simply, investors panicked.

‘A way to keep the blame from ourselves.’

That’s what we all need to recognize. The bull market has lured many weak and inexperienced investors who either have never lived through a big market downdraft or whose memories are too short to remember the last one. Blaming computers for investors’ panic is pointless.

Dennis Gartman, editor of the institutional advisory service The Gartman Letter, believes there’s a psychological motive to blame computers: “It is easy for those who’ve been long of equities and who are now suffering very real and increasing losses to look for someone or something to blame for their losses.” But, Gartman recently told clients, blaming computers “is a way to keep the blame from ourselves; it is a human response but it is wrong.”

Endret 22.02.2018 11:25 av highlander
highlander
16:11 22.02.2018
#8342

En til fra MarketWatch i dag:

3 reasons stock-market investors should think it really is different this time

Tighter Federal Reserve policy and a $1 trillion U.S. budget deficit boost could change the ‘buy the dip’ logic


The road ahead may no longer be smooth...

In 2018, the stock market rattled investors by proving it can occasionally move down as well as up.

After all, you take notice when the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA ost more than 1,000 points in two different sessions just a few days apart in early February, or more recently when megacap retailer Walmart WMT, plummeted 10 % in a few hours.

But despite this volatility, a steady parade of talking heads — including yours truly, in fact, who recommended Apple AAPL, +1.03% last week on its pullback — have been urging investors to stay calm and see the opportunities instead of the carnage.

“We were overdue for a pullback,” they say.

“Buy the dip,” they say.

Well... should you, really?

As British investment banker Sir John Templeton said, “The four most dangerous words in investing are: This time, it’s different.” And it’s obvious that the naysayers who have bet against this rally over the last nine years have been proven wrong at every turn.

But market timing is incredibly difficult, and while sudden shifts in investor sentiment are rare, they do happen.

So is what we’re seeing in early 2018 just a natural pause in this rally, or are things really different this time — and is it something more?

1. Deficit spending is different this time
We’ve seen our share of bleak headlines during this rally: the European debt crisis of 2011, America’s first-ever credit downgrade and the energy sector’s collapse in 2015 that sparked fears of junk-bond contagion.

However, a relentless demand for U.S. equities always seemed to get us through. And continued improvement in housing and employment metrics proved that the recovery was for real.

Those factors may still be enough to keep the rally on track in 2018. But there are a few big items that are very different right now — chief among them being America’s government taking its spendthrift ways to the next level.

There’s a lot of talk about tax cuts boosting corporate earnings in the short term. But with the economy already at full employment, what about the necessary boost in GDP to pay for those cuts?

Many researchers, including the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, predicted that reducing corporate taxes to 21% will reduce tax revenue by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And while some Republicans are quick to claim that prediction doesn’t take into account economic growth, keep in mind we haven’t seen full-year GDP expansion above 3% since 2005 and haven’t seen 4% GDP growth since 1999.

If you truly believe it’s dangerous to say “this time is different,” then it’s worth remembering how rare those growth rates are. In fact, a mid-February forecast from the Conference Board estimates U.S. GDP will only grow by as much as 2.9% in 2018 even accounting for the pop from corporate tax cuts — another sign of how out of reach 4% growth is.

So how are we going to pay for this corporate giveaway?

We could slash government spending, as many conservatives would encourage. But the entirety of “discretionary” federal programs tallies just $700 billion, or 17% of a $4 trillion budget across entitlements and the military. Even if you wanted to do away with national parks, Pell grants and the National Science Foundation, you’re still running in the red.

Oh yeah, and in 2017 we paid close to $275 billion in interest on our current national debt of roughly $20 billion. And more borrowing means that line item in the budget will only grow.

Sure, U.S. Treasury bonds are always in demand, and we can assuredly keep borrowing in 2018 and beyond to pay the bills. But the bond market will assuredly demand higher interest payments on our ballooning debt load — particularly amid the risk of chronic debt ceiling fights, since the GOP can’t even agree within their own party on spending priorities.

[fortsetter]

Endret 22.02.2018 16:12 av highlander
highlander
16:12 22.02.2018
#8343

[fortsatt]

2. The interest-rate picture is already different
This idea of higher interest rates on Treasurys isn’t just limited to conversations about the national debt.

After Jerome Powell was confirmed as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve in January, it was expected that he would continue on the path set by his predecessor Janet Yellen. But that doesn’t mean he’ll be sticking with the market-friendly policies like those used early on in Yellen’s tenure. Rather, he will be continuing the slow and carefully telegraphed march toward “normalization” that began when the Fed increased rates in December 2015 for the first time since the Great Recession.

There’s little chance the Fed deviates from that course. The Fed minutes from the January Federal Open Market Committee meeting, released Wednesday, show most members expecting inflation to move higher and that “a gradual upward trajectory of the federal-funds rate would be appropriate.”

Job numbers are still strong, with a 4.1% unemployment rate for January and a jobless rate that hasn’t topped 5.0% since August 2015. Furthermore, inflation seems to be picking up with January’s jobs numbers featuring the strongest wage growth since the financial crisis and the consumer-price index jumping much more than expected last month.

Simply put, things really are different in 2018. We are at full employment and facing a moderate chance of inflation, and we have a central bank that is clearly and consistently moving down the path of tighter monetary policy.

Besides, there’s the obvious fact that we haven’t seen a rising interest-rate environment since 2004 to 2006. Back then, China’s GDP was roughly half its current size, two Harvard buddies had just landed $500,000 in funding for a fledgling website called Facebook and George W. Bush was just starting his second term.

You may counter that we’ve technically been in a rising rate environment for over a year, as the Fed funds rate has marched steadily higher. But the bond market didn’t really react according as rates on the 10-year T-Note traded under 2.1% as recently as last fall.

Now, the 10-year TMUBMUSD10Y is flirting with 3% — a level not seen since 2014. If it pushes just a bit beyond that to a yield of about 3.1% we will see the highest Treasury yields in roughly seven years.

That’s very different indeed.

3. The global picture may soon be different, too
All this is enough to create uncertainty, even if it doesn’t create seismic shifts in market dynamics this year. But looking around the corner, we may see shifting sands under central banks around the world as well.

The European Central Bank was much hastier in its effort to move off near-zero interest rates than the U.S. Federal Reserve, with a series of premature rate increases in early 2011 that sparked a “double-dip” recession. But since then, the ECB has gotten so loose with monetary policy that key deposit facility interest rates are actually negative and have been since 2014.

In many ways, Europe has been following the lead of the Fed and its innovative approach to monetary policy. That includes not just rock-bottom interest rates but also so-called “quantitative easing” bond buying programs.

In 2014, America stopped its QE program and in 2017 started to unwind the bonds on its balance sheet. And while the ECB hasn’t quit this effort in its entirety, policy makers last year announced they would cut bond buying stimulus measures in half in an effort to at last wean itself off QE.

It’s reasonable to expect the ECB to continue on the same path as the Fed — a clearly telegraphed end to stock market-friendly initiatives as monetary policy gradually tightens in the coming years.

That is incredibly different than where the world is following America’s lead on easy money policies.

To be clear, these are all big-picture trends that will take some time to play out. But investors who think we will perpetually live in a world of never-ending stock market gains would do well to realize how the playing field is changing.

Yes, it was folly to worry that every hiccup in the recovery from 2009 to 2018 was a sign the stock market and economy were doomed to stumble. But it also folly to presume crisis-era policies will remain in place forever.

And yes, it has been a fool’s errand to presume the national debt is a sign that America is doomed. However, a $1 trillion bump to that debt coupled with dysfunctional politics characterized by chronic government shutdowns could be considered a sign that we are at a tipping point.

Simply put, the world is very different in 2018 than it was in 2008, or even in 2011 or 2015.

Remember that before you simply buy the dip and presume the rally will continue as in years past.
highlander
00:47 23.02.2018
#8351

Før børsåpningen på Wall Street forelå følgende nøkkeltall:

Ledende indikatorer steg med 1,0 prosent i USA i januar, mens det ifølge Bloomberg var ventet en oppgang på 0,6 prosent.

Jobless claims - antall førstegangssøkende til ledighetstrygd i USA - var 222.000 sist uke, ned fra 229.000 uken før, mens snittforventningen var 230.000.

Etter en småhumpete ferd, der Dow Jones og SPX på det meste var opp tilnærmet halvannen og én prosent sluttett det hele slik på torsdag:

Dow 24,962.48 164.70 0.66%
S&P 500 2,703.96 2.63 0.10%
Nasdaq 7,210.09 -8.14 -0.11%

Nok en dag der gode makrotall til slutt fikk en lunken mottakelse pga rentefrykt...?

Etter en totalvurdering valgte jeg å sitte videre med SPXS, selv om jeg på et tidspunkt kunne kommet ut med en marginal pluss.

Endret 23.02.2018 00:48 av highlander
highlander
09:35 23.02.2018
#8359

Fra E24 i går kveld:

Spår bratt oppgang i verdens viktigste rente

Rentehopp har satt en støkk i markedene etter årene med gratis penger. DNB Markets ser tre grunner til at renteoppgangen vil fortsette det neste året.

Tett fulgte markedsrenter i USA har gjort et kraftig hopp den siste tiden, noe som tidvis har skremt markeder som har vent seg til nærmest evig lave renter.

Den amerikanske tiårsrenten – verdens viktigste rente, har steget til de høyeste nivåene på rundt fire år, hjulpet av en økonomi som har kviknet til og en sentralbank som fortsetter å heve styringsrenten.

Med utsikter til enda høyere renter i USA, og etter hvert avvikling av krisetiltak også i Europa, kan det være et vendepunkt på vei i rentemarkedet, etter årene med ultralave renter i kjølvannet av finanskrisen.

Og renteoppgangen i amerikanske økonomi er i ferd med å akselerere, tror økonomene i DNB Markets.

I et ferskt notat torsdag jekkes prognosen for tiårsrenten opp, samtidig som meglerhuset nå ser for seg at den amerikanske sentralbanken Federal Reserve vil gå for fire rentehevinger både i år og neste år.

Med en renteøkning til i 2020 ender styringsrenten dette året på 3,75 prosent i prognosen, mens tiårsrenten vil gå fra 2,91 prosent i dag til 3,75 prosent i februar neste år, om DNB Markets får rett.

Tre grunner til statsrentehopp
Årsaken til den brattere renteoppgangen i statsrenten er tredelt ifølge notatet:

Åtte rentehevinger fra Federal Reserve de to neste årene er dobbelt så mange som markedet har priset inn. Treffer DNB-økonomene med sitt anslag tror de det er duket for en «markert reprising».
Stigende anslag for økonomisk vekst og inflasjon kan føre til stigende forventninger til det som regnes som den nøytrale renten, altså rentenivået som hverken gir gass eller bremser økonomien, tror DNB Markets.
I tillegg mener meglerhuset at økte budsjettunderskudd og opphevingen av det såkalte gjeldstaket frem til mars 2019 trolig vil øke rentepresset. Gjeldstaket er en selvpålagt grense for mye staten kan låne.
Også andre analytikere har skrudd opp renteforventningene, men mer moderat.

Analytikerne i Danske Bank tok nylig opp sin prognose for tiårsrenten til 3,3 prosent på tolv måneders sikt, mot et tidligere anslag på 2,90 prosent.

Ser rentepress fra økte underskudd
Mye av grunnen til rentepresset er at USA nå gir gass i budsjettpolitikken, ifølge DNB Markets.

Demokratene og republikanerne kom i starten av februar til enighet om en toårig budsjettavtale som øker pengebruken på flere områder.

Det vil ifølge DNB Markets øke farten i en økonomi som allerede er i oppgang, samt senke arbeidsledigheten enda mer og gi et budsjettunderskudd på 5,5 prosent av bruttonasjonalprodukt i 2019, det største i fredstid utenom resesjoner.

– Det er en sterk oppgangsfase. Det unormale er at man gir ytterligere gass med budsjettpolitikken når man er i en fase hvor økonomien driver seg selv, slik den gjør nå, sier USA-økonom Knut A. Magnussen i DNB Markets til E24.

Bedre tider i økonomien er i utgangspunktet godt nytt, men fører også gjerne med seg høyere renter.

– Underskuddet på statsfinansene øker ganske mye, og mer enn det vi hadde lagt til grunn. Det vil sannsynligvis også legge et press oppover på de lange rentene, sier Magnussen.

– Man må rett og slett hente mer penger i statsmarkedet fremover for å finansiere underskuddet. Det kommer på toppen av økt vekst og inflasjonsforventninger, sier han.

Det er likevel ikke snakk om en overoppheting av verdens største økonomi – enda, ifølge Magnussen.

– Det er fare for det, og derfor må man etter hvert sette renten såpass mye opp at den vil virke innstrammende på økonomien, sier han.
Beins
11:34 23.02.2018
#11698

Renter og aksjemarked:

But strategists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, led by Savita Subramanian, dug through the bond market’s ups and downs to see how rates influenced the performance of the U.S. stock market. They found that the slope of the yield curve, a line plotting yields across all Treasury maturities, had more to say about equity performance than yields alone.

Yields have been a source of worry for stock market investors. Some analysts saw a rise in yields in late January as the spark that set off a stock-market selloff which swiftly morphed into a more-than-10% correction from the all-time highs notched by the S&P 500 SPX, +0.10% and Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.66% .

But the Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts say equity returns are also conditional on how short-term yields move in relation to their longer-term peers.

The chart below shows how the S&P 500 has performed over the four different varieties of movements in the curve:

A bull flattener, in which long term rates fall faster than short term rates

bull steepener, in which short term rates fall faster than long term rates

bear flattener, in which short term rates rise faster than long term rates

bear steepener, in which long term rates rise faster than short term rates

“Bear flatteners have historically been the best environment for the S&P 500, and bull steepeners the worst,” they said.




Vi må se på relasjonen mellom kortstiktig og langsiktig rente for å fange opp effekten på aksjemarkedet.



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-stock-market-investors-need-to-keep-an-eye-on-the-yield-curve-2018-02-22
gorwell
13:56 23.02.2018
#22727

Blir det mye av infrastruktur-pakken om renten stiger da?

Jeg tenker vel at det kan bli VELDIG dyrt å finansiere pakken over lånte midler og at eksisterende midler derfor heller trekker mot utlånsmarkedet, hvilket gjør finansieringen vanskelig med økte priser på utbyggingen og bruk (inflasjon), hvilket reduserer profitabilitet, hvilket gjør at prisene må ennå høyere med en selvforsterkende spiral den veien høna sparker?

gorwell
Beins
21:19 23.02.2018
#11699

SPX i 2738 i øyeblikket, opp gode 1,28 %. Nå er spørsmålet om vi får salgspress på tampen slik som de to foregående dager, eller om den vesle pull back'en etter at børsene tok seg opp igjen, nå begynner å slippe taket for alvor.

Bra come back for Nasdaq som har vært svakest nå i det siste.
Varsling på tema     Varsling på stikkord




StockTalk er en tjeneste levert av Kreateam Consult AS. Orgnr. 911 839 806 MVA
Adresse: Postboks 39 Holmlia, 1201 Oslo. Email: st@stocktalk.no Tlf. 40 07 31 70
Kontakt oss | Hjelp | Regler | Sett som startside | Legg til favoritter