What Are The Markets Trying To Tell Us?
**Since March 2010, Mr. Bernstein has served as Senior Vice President, Research, for AH Lisanti Capital Growth, LLC, a registered investment adviser. This commentary solely represents Mr. Bernstein’s views and opinions as of July 21st, 2010, does not constitute investment advice and does not depict the views of AH Lisanti Capital Growth, LLC.
Action in the bond, stock and commodities markets have been very confusing to me as of late. The stock market, which has broken critical technical levels (see my recent piece "Critical Juncture") has "hung in there" recently, partly due to the extremely bearish sentiment of investors, who typically "get it wrong" as a group in the short-term.
But much more perplexing to me than the stock market's refusal to completely barf over the stream of negative macro economic data points and poor technical action, is the lack of spread widening in the bond market in the face of plummeting bond yields. I know I'm talking "inside baseball", so let's back up and define some terms.
Risk spreads are the premiums demanded by bond buyers above the "risk free rate" (embodied by short-term US treasury rates - peanut gallery please refrain from Uncle Sam is broke jokes) in order to be persuaded to hold bonds with some non-zero risk of default. When bond investors get nervous about bond issuers ability to pay back their debts (weakening economy and/or liquidity crisis) these spreads (yield differentials) tend to "blow out" (widen). Shockingly, while bond yields are "breaking down like a soup sandwich" lately (their prices are surging and yields falling, indicating inflation pressures in retreat), riskier bonds are rallying almost as much, keeping spreads in check. As you can see from the chart below, which I borrowed from the Bank Credit Analyst, bond spreads have not blown out during the recent treasury rally. This is likely explained by the new peak in return on capital being reached by corporations (as their returns on investment are far eclipsing their cost of capital). This large spread is a cushion to corporations' abilities to support their debt, even if sales and/or profit margins were to contract to some degree.
Many investors believe that the bond market is less flighty and more rational than the stock market, particularly in light of the bond market's sniffing out the world financial crisis before the stock market did. For this reason I take the strange behavior being exhibited by bond spreads seriously. If one were to assume a less omniscient bond market, one could explain the current situation thusly: Investors are worried about deflation and are piling out of stocks and into bonds, they are also blindly buying credit risk in a desperate grab for yield. The expectation would be that eventually the slow economy would punish the yield seeking buyers by haircutting their bond prices (raising yields) and blowing out spreads versus treasuries.

But what if bond buyers are actually very smart and rational? What if they actually believe that the economy will slow, unemployment will remain high and inflation will not be a problem for a long time? What is they also believe that this does will not result in a slow down bad enough to cause bond defaults, maybe just earnings disappointments? Then bonds rallying across the risk spectrum would make sense. Interestingly, I believe that the recent action in gold prices is expressing belief in the same theory.
Gold has been a one way bet for the last couple of years. It has seemed to be "insurance" against two tail risks (unlikely but highly damaging occurances). In the first case, the market imagines that the economy stabilizes and begins to turn around and all of the bank reserves that have been stashed away and creating no economic growth because they are not being lent out, come rushing back into the market too rapidly for the Fed to mop them up, creating an economic overheating and inflation. In this case gold would participate in the inflation trend. On the other side of the coin, what if the economy went into a deflationary tailspin and the only way for the U.S. to pay of it's debts was to allow the dollar to crash, print money and devalue our way out from under our debt. In this case our cheapened dollars would barely buy anything, causing the hyper-inflation seen in undisciplined emerging economies in the past (think Argentina a few years ago). Gold would certainly retain its value and explode to the upside in a relative sense, under such a scenario. Recently, however, gold has tended to be more and more correlated to a rising stock market, and has felt more like a momentum driven risk play. As such, it has grown "tired" as the stock market has rounded over and churned. Click (View image) to see a gold chart which appears to be potentially topping out (note that during gold's multi-year run, it has had corrections of this duration and magnitude before and later moved on to new highs, although these seemed to follow more parabolic rises than the recent run.)
I like the self consistent picture that seems to be being painted by stocks, bonds and gold right now. In short, the action of all three assets suggests that the economy is slowing....enough to dent corprate earnings and stocks (though downside from here should be limited - stocks always go to extremes so maybe 10 - 15%), while tail risks (deflationary spiral/hyper-inflation or overheated recovery) are off the table, implying riskier credits will be okay and treasury bonds are not set to tank anytime soon due to the lack of economic traction. Oil, which is stuck in a trading range, also seems to concur. If economic growth were really about to plummet oil would be acting a lot worse. We will see if this explanantion plays out, for now it seems to best explain the interesting trends I see in the markets. Technical action in the stock market still leaves me cautious on equities, but I'm not in the deflationary spiral camp and I don't think Mr. Market is either.



Posted by sechel
Thu Jul 22nd, 2010 11:36 AM
Stock market is supported by Fed liquidity and low rates. The only players are basically the HFT and momentum guys.
Posted by Robert F.
Thu Jul 22nd, 2010 01:22 PM
RUN! Run away fast! That's what the market is telling me anyway.
Posted by jeff
Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 04:53 AM
LOL....there's not many individuals left to run away. Bearish sentiment is very high and the market is not usually that accomodating. That said, I'm a stock market bear with stocks indexes trading below their 200 day moving averages, but the very bearish technical picture seems to be shifting under the surface. Stay tuned. We have all been through a lot. I'm not all that fired up about a slow motion future, but I still don't think the end is nigh.
Posted by mh23
Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 08:02 AM
Jeff, I always enjoy your comments on the markets. I myself think that stocks represent the best value out there, if you have a ten year time horizon. If you think about it, our economy, being driven by the private sector, is dependent upon growth of private companies. Right now we have an administration that has been relatively hostile to the deployment of capital, as evidenced but the 1.8 trillion on corporate balance sheets and .5 trillion in private equity funds. At some point in time, the pendulum will swing back towards supporting growth of the private sector rather than the growth of government, and when that occurs, there will be a flurry of activity that should fuel the market higher.
In addition to that, Bernanke understands that, should the market crash to say 5000 and stay there for a protracted period of time, it would devastate private and public pension funds, annuities, insurance companies, and a host of other entities that are necessary for our society to function. As such, I believe that Bernanke will do what is needed to support stock prices to the extent that he can. It is clear that the decision has already been made to inflate us out of this crisis, and I would be loathe to bet against Bernanke on his willingness to do whatever is needed, especially when you consider his prior writings.
Posted by anonymous
Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 09:29 AM
mh23
I see your point, but what makes the Fed inflating us positive. That could cause some short-term support, but high inflation generally hurts private investment by introducing uncertainty and increasing interest rates. It also would erode the value of PE and corporate cash stockpiles.
Posted by jas
Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 10:59 AM
mh23,
How is the cash on corporate balance sheets and the overhang of private equity commitments the fault of , to paraphrase, a hostile administration? I see the the extremely low interest rates and bailout of the financial system as anything but hostile to private sector interests.
Posted by Fred
Fri Jul 23rd, 2010 09:54 PM
Jas - I think the term "hostile" is more media manufactured since the real issue is uncertainty clearly generated by this Administration around basic issues like to what degree Gov't should be managing large pieces of the economy; tax changes; a very clear and stated aversion to the oil & gas sectors; a clear preference for anything union, at the expense of shareholders (and bondholders especially); a gov't in large part run by career technocrats, lawyers and autobiographers, sold through crafty speeches and blatant populist manipulation. The list goes on and on. But that's neither here nor there because by November, there will be new leadership. Geithner and Barry are about as light as they come. We've got an idiot from DE running around basically making foreign policy for the US and he doesn't even have the decency to get a real hair plug done.
If you think for a second that low interest rates are "friendly" to business, you don't understand business. It's not the level of them that matters, it's the velocity of money. They are low because of the pathetically low velocity of money. Business is just like the consumer. They won't spend if they don't trust the future, and that's what I think many are calling "hostile". It may be the wrong word to use, but it's the right perspective.
Posted by lars
Sat Jul 24th, 2010 12:48 AM
mh23 wrote:
"I believe that Bernanke will do what is needed to support stock prices to the extent that he can. It is clear that the decision has already been made to inflate us out of this crisis..."
There are clearly hard times ahead for all of us, but I'm reasonably confident that when all other avenues are exhausted to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the US will finally address its problems before utter catastrophe hits. In that regard, I'm reasonably convinced Bernanke is near the end of what he can feasibly do; and, the appetite for big stimulus in Congress is fading fast if not gone already.
Further lowering of interest rates at the short end cannot be achieved (zero is zero after all) and pushing down the long end of the curve materially, besides being prohibitively expense if even achievable (GS estimated FED balance sheet would have to reach $10 trillion to make any headway in QE II), would not significantly increase demand for credit. Plus, it would torpedo the FED's tried and true policy of recapitalizing the banks through a steep yield curve.
We have reached the point where monetary policy is truly pushing on a string: the basic problem being lack of demand at both the consumer and corporate levels. The FED can DO NOTHING about this problem beyond what it has already done.
Time, of course, will tell...
Posted by mh23
Sat Jul 24th, 2010 08:05 AM
Jeff:
To your point, I am not arguing that inflation is good, per se. If inflation were to get out of control, it would be terrible. However, our current bout of deflation, if left to run its course, would be truly awful and Bernanke knows it. Therefor, he has clearly made the decision to inflate and deal with the consequences of inflation later. Inflation "seems" to raise wages and asset prices, thus making people feel good, as well as enabling us to pay back our debt in cheaper dollars. That is clearly what he has chosen to do, and as an investor, one needs to deal with reality, not with what should or should not happen.
Jas:
What I meant to say is that the uncertainty surrounding many of the policies that have been promulgated by and executed by the administration and congress have injected a great deal of uncertainty into the system, and as such have led to companies hording cash when they might otherwise be deploying their cash to purchase assets and hire new employees. I would agree that Fred's explanation is more eloquent than mine. Perhaps the long-term consequences of health care reform, more regulations, and an expanding federal government may be good, but in the short term they appear to make matters too opaque for companies to deploy cash. With respect to the low interest rates helping the financial services sector, that sort of makes my point regarding our decision to inflate our way out of this. Although, as I am sure you know, interest rates are not set by the President or Congress but by the Fed, so that is really a policy decision reflecting Bernanke's inflationary bias. As for the bailout of the financial system, one would credit that to the administration. Thanks to the decision to prop up the banking system, Wall Street has enjoyed record bonuses during that last 18 months. As for small business and other industries, that is another matter.
Lars:
I fully agree with you that the Fed and only do so much. Ultimately, if consumers and businesses lack the confidence to spend, we will be in this deflationary period for quite some time. That is why it is so important for the government to encourage economic activity by infusing the country with confidence about the future and clarity regarding taxes, regulations, and employer obligations. Unfortunately not been done.
Posted by In Debt We Trust
Sat Jul 24th, 2010 09:35 AM
Jeff,
Do you see any dangers from an inverted yield curve?
Additionally, what are your thoughts on other nations' tightening of rates while the US remains committed to ZIRP? Australia, Canada, India, Brazil, and a few others have been hiking rates. Even the BOE and ECB have called for higher rates.
How do you explain this dichotomy vis a vis the United States?
Posted by Fred
Sat Jul 24th, 2010 09:40 PM
Debt - are you talking about inversion on the short end of the curve? re: emerging markets/commodity currencies - my view is what the Fed won't say is that ZIRP in the US and EU is all about driving risk capital into those economies right now and breaking the knee-jerk flight to T-bills. the biggest problem has been too much capital coming into the US. the only out for the US is to debase. there is no other solution. that's the main argument for buying EM. I am not a fan of buying China, but buying around China is very smart. China is about to announce a new currency basket for FX purposes - my bet is that basket will look a lot like what China envisions needing to import over the next 20+ years (Australia, Brazil, etc.). once that happens, the USD and Euro will trade more or less in lock-step, but generally down.
Posted by jeff
Mon Jul 26th, 2010 11:13 AM
Guys,
Sorry to have sat out much of the discussion...I was away for the weekend and without internet service...it can be a great break.
I have been bearish on stocks recently owing to the poor technical action and the simple fact that nearly every country in the world is either tightening monetary policy or adopting austerity programs. This combined with the pathetic velocity of money noted above makes me cautious on the rate of economic growth.
I am not and have not been an end of the world believer. While our debt burden is quite large, the cost of carrying it today is no higher than it was in the early 90s...and we survived that bleak period and thrived. Being a reserve currency we have options the emerging countries don't. I also do believe that, as noted above, eventually policies that "crowd out" business investment are unsustainable and will be voted down. I think we are seeing evidence of this which is heartening to the markets. I also think the market is starting to detect a relucatnce on the the part of China to push its luck in its tightening campaign (political exigencies exist there as well). The Shanghai market appears to be bottoming as a result. For this reason and much improved stock valuations I am leaning towards giving equities the bullish benefit of the doubt. I'm an optimist (though of the realistic variety) and I see many technological and behavioral changes on the horizon that are likely to put the U.S. in a better competitive position in the coming decade. It will be a long slog through deleveraging and much of it will come through defaults rather than saving (but we have already raised the money to absorb those losses) and I expect a muddle through environment like the early 90s which could be quite good for stocks. I am wary of the potential for outside shocks, which are too numerous to go into here. My biggest personal investment changes are cutting way back on gold and preparing to get longer in equities.
Posted by Thisson
Thu Jul 29th, 2010 12:16 PM
Noah,
I think you are missing a big part of the gold story.
Gold is moving up, in large part, because real interest rates have declined. I believe it was Larry Summers who wrote the key paper on how gold moves inversely to real interest rates ("Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard":
http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v96y1988i3p528-50.html
Posted by Thisson
Thu Jul 29th, 2010 12:19 PM
Oops, I see now that this was authored by Jeff.
Anyway, here's a better link to the artcile on Gibson's Paradox:
http://www.gata.org/files/gibson.pdf
And here is an article discussing the implications of the article:
http://www.therichterreport.com/content.php?id=328&menu_id=15&menu_item_id=0
Posted by Fred
Fri Jul 30th, 2010 09:22 AM
Thisson - Isn't this arguably the case for all metals since the cost of capital makes ownership cheaper?
Posted by ebby33
Fri Jul 30th, 2010 02:04 PM
Inventory is still going down in Manhattan. Interesting.
Posted by Pete from the Slope
Fri Jul 30th, 2010 09:13 PM
Comments above are fascinating, although some a bit prolix; still I'd rather have that and try to intellectually "swim up to them", and learn.
If Ebby 33 means housing inventory, well everybody's got to
have a home...May seem trite,but true, and In housing, population is the main factor- and that's still growing.
I'd expect more Chinese and Sub -Asian Buyers in Manhattan.
Also the generational transfer of financial assets into housing
for Americans continues...Grandmom helping Suzy buy the condo of her dreams.
Some Townhouse are being converted back into (high end) rentals.-It makes sense in a way, cause rentals in preferred areas have nudged up.
Posted by brainardridgeapps
Mon Aug 9th, 2010 05:16 AM
Real Estate is having a big part on the business world, on real estate, selling is not as easy as eating peanuts, you need to have the guts, proper marketing and being honest on what you are selling but definitely real estate is really a great investment because it gives a lot of opportunity.Brainard Ridge Realty is a full-service real estate brokerage and development company, specializing in Timberframe and Custom Log Homes. http://www.brainardridge.com
Posted by ugg boots london
Thu Aug 12th, 2010 11:21 PM
good
Posted by ugg boots london
Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 01:04 AM
good