Tag Archives: Powell Put

Crazy Days

I have been somewhat out of the loop on the market over the past 2 months, partly due to work and partly due to a general apathy towards trying to understand the current market reasoning. I am very much in a risk off mode on a personal basis having moved mainly into cash since April to protect YTD gains (and take the hit on YTD losses!). At the end of April, I posted my thoughts about the equity market (with the S&P500 being my proxy for the “equity market”). Since then, the equity market has sea sawed 7% down in May and 7% up June to date, now in sight of new all-time highs. The volatility has primarily centred around the China trade talks and the economic outlook.

With the 10-year US treasury yield now just above 2% compared to around 2.5% at the end of April, clearly market expectations have changed. At its meeting last week, the Fed highlighted an increase in uncertainties to the global economy and stated that “in light of these uncertainties and muted inflation pressures, the Committee will closely monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion”. The market is loving the new Powell put rhetoric (he does seem to be overcompensating for the year end 2018 “error”) and some are taking language such aswe will act as needed, including promptly if that’s appropriate” to mean multiple cuts this year, as many as three this year have even been advocated. Equity markets seem to be missing the point that multiple rate cuts will mean the economy has deteriorated rapidly, with a recession a real possibility. Hardly a reason for all time high equity markets!

There’s also the issue of the Fed’s current benchmark rate of 2.25% to 2.5% which is not exactly at normal economic boom levels given it historically has taken cuts of 3-4% to reverse recessionary slowdowns. Powell may be counting on the shock therapy of an early and relatively large cut (50 bps?) as an antidote to any rapid worsening of the trade war with China (or the outbreak of a real war with Iran!). In such an outcome, it is inevitable that talk of QE will re-emerge, providing yet more distortion to this millennium’s crazy brand of monetary policy.

A whole host of other things are bothering me – I highlighted high valuations on the hot business software stocks (here), Slack’s valuation (now over $18 billion. It had $135 million of revenues last quarter!!), a bitcoin rally, the fantasy-land UK conservative party leadership contest (the UK used to lead the world in the quality of its political debate, how did it get to this?), and, last but not least, the Orange One and Iran and well everything else to do with Trump. Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant.

And so, we come to the G20 meeting of the world’s greatest leaders this week. Maybe it’s my mood but I found myself agreeing with the analysis (here) of Dr Doom himself, known as Nouriel Roubini to his friends. Roubini highlights three possible scenarios on the US China talks – an agreed truce with a negotiated settlement by the end of the year, a full-scale trade & tech & cold war within 6 to 12 months, or no trade deal agreed but a truce whereby tariffs agreed to be capped at 10% to avoid escalation. The third option is in effect a slow-burn trade war or a managed trade escalation.

I would agree with Roubini that either the first (but without the settlement this year) or third options are the most likely as both sides have reasons to avoid a rapid escalation. China needs time to prepare its economy for a prolonged conflict and to see how Trump fairs politically. Trump can portray himself as the John Wayne figure his man-child self longs to be in standing up to China and can pressure the Fed to stimulate the economy from any short-term impacts. Unfortunately, a managed escalation of a trade war is exactly like a managed Brexit. Impossible. You are either in or out. Have a deal or don’t have a deal. Could a grand deal be struck with this G20 meeting proving the turning point? Its possible but unlikely in my view (I’m referring to a real deal, not a fantasy/pretend deal). I hope I’m wrong.

Against this backdrop, forgive my lack of insight into the current collective wisdom of the market but an all-time high equity market makes little sense to me. And that’s me being polite.

A naughty or nice 2019?

They say if you keep making the same prediction, at some stage it will come true. Well, my 2018 post a year ago on the return of volatility eventually proved prescient (I made the same prediction for 2017!). Besides the equity markets (multiple posts with the latest one here), the non-company specific topics covered in this blog in 2018 ranged from the telecom sector (here), insurance (here, here, and here), climate change (here and here), to my own favourite posts on artificial intelligence (here, here and here).

The most popular post (by far thanks to a repost by InsuranceLinked)) this year was on the Lloyds’ of London market (here) and I again undertake to try to post more on insurance specific topics in 2019. My company specific posts in 2018 centered on CenturyLink (CTL), Apple (AAPL), PaddyPowerBetfair (PPB.L), and Nvidia (NVDA). Given that I am now on the side-lines on all these names, except CTL, until their operating results justify my estimate of fair value and the market direction is clearer, I hope to widen the range of firms I will post on in 2019, time permitting. Although this blog is primarily a means of trying to clarify my own thoughts on various topics by means of a public diary of sorts, it is gratifying to see that I got the highest number of views and visitors in 2018. I am most grateful to you, dear reader, for that.

In terms of predictions for the 2019 equity markets, the graph below shows the latest targets from market analysts. Given the volatility in Q4 2018, it is unsurprising that the range of estimates for 2019 is wider than previously. At the beginning of 2018, the consensus EPS estimate for the S&P500 was $146.00 with an average multiple just below 20. Current 2018 estimates of $157.00 resulted in a multiple of 16 for the year end S&P500 number. The drop from 20 to 16 illustrates the level of uncertainty in the current market

click to enlarge

For 2019, the consensus EPS estimate is (currently) $171.00 with an average 2019 year-end target of 2,900 implying a 17 multiple. Given that this EPS estimate of 9% growth includes sectors such as energy with an assumed healthy 10% EPS growth projection despite the oil price drop, it’s probable that this EPS estimate will come down during the upcoming earnings season as firms err on the conservative side for their 2019 projections.

The bears point to building pressures on top-line growth and on record profit margins. The golden boy of the moment, Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley, calls the current 2019 EPS estimates “lofty”. The bulls point to the newly established (as of last Friday) Powell Put and the likely resolution of the US-China trade spat (because both sides need it). I am still dubious on a significant or timely relaxation of global quantitative tightening and don’t feel particularly inclined to bet money on the Orange One’s negotiating prowess with China. My guess is the Chinese will give enough for a fudge but not enough to satisfy Trump’s narcissistic need (and political need?) for a visible outright victory. The NAFTA negotiations and his stance on the Wall show outcomes bear little relation to the rhetoric of the man. These issues will be the story of 2019. Plus Brexit of course (or as I suspect the lack thereof).

Until we get further insight from the Q4 earnings calls, my current base assumption of 4% EPS growth to $164 with a multiple of 15 to 16 implies the S&P500 will be range bound around current levels of 2,400 – 2,600. Hopefully with less big moves up or down!

Historically, a non-recessionary bear market lasts on average 7 months according to Ed Clissold of Ned Davis Research (see their 2019 report here). According to Bank of America, since 1950 the S&P 500 has endured 11 retreats of 12% or more in prolonged bull markets with these corrections lasting 8 months on average. The exhibit below suggests that such corrections only take 5 months to recover peak to trough.

click to enlarge

To get a feel for the possible direction of the S&P500 over 2019, I looked at the historical path of the index over 300 trading days after a peak for 4 non-recessionary and 4 recessionary periods (remember recessions are usually declared after they have begun), as below.

Note: These graphs have been subsequently updated for the S&P500 close to the 18th January 2019. 

click to enlarges&p500 q42018 drop compared to 4 nonrecession drops in 1962 1987 1998 & 2015 updated

 

click to enlarges&p500 q42018 drop compared to 4 recession drops in 1957 1974 1990 & 2000 updated

 

I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which path represents the most likely one for 2019. It is interesting that the 1957 track most closely matches the moves to date  (Ed: as per the date of the post, obviously not after that date!) but history rarely exactly rhymes. I have no idea whether 2019 will be naughty or nice for equity investors. I can predict with 100% certainty that it will not be dull….

Given that Brightwater’s pure Alpha fund has reportingly returned an impressive 14.6% for 2018 net of fees, I will leave the last word to Ray Dalio, who has featured regularly in this blog in 2018, as per his recent article (which I highly recommend):

Typically at this phase of the short-term debt cycle (which is where we are now), the prices of the hottest stocks and other equity-like assets that do well when growth is strong (e.g., private equity and real estate) decline and corporate credit spreads and credit risks start to rise. Typically, that happens in the areas that have had the biggest debt growth, especially if that happens in the largely unregulated shadow banking system (i.e., the non-bank lending system). In the last cycle, it was in the mortgage debt market. In this cycle, it has been in corporate and government debt markets.

When the cracks start to appear, both those problems that one can anticipate and those that one can’t start to appear, so it is especially important to identify them quickly and stay one step ahead of them.

So, it appears to me that we are in the late stages of both the short-term and long-term debt cycles. In other words, a) we are in the late-cycle phase of the short-term debt cycle when profit and earnings growth are still strong and the tightening of credit is causing asset prices to decline, and b) we are in the late-cycle phase of the long-term debt cycle when asset prices and economies are sensitive to tightenings and when central banks don’t have much power to ease credit.

A very happy and healthy 2019 to all.