For over a year now, every time the market says “oh trade war, things are going to fall apart” has been a buying opportunity, whereas every time there’s a Trump tweet with some blindingly optimistic prose like “Xi is a great friend, he is fantastic beautiful man, trade deal all but signed” it is a selling opportunity.
Yesterday the market looked hot. Today it’s on fire. I quickly sold out of that Seagate for about a 4% gain. I’ve been better at reading Trump than the Federal Reserve, so I don’t want to hang around for any surprise announcement tomorrow where the market craters if the Federal Reserve is the least bit reserved with their opium.
Ahead of this week’s Fed meeting, Trump activated his own QE program by jumping on the bird to put out an APB
He continued to put pressure on the Federal Reserve
Asked in an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos about whether his criticism of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell could undercut Mr. Powell’s credibility, he said, “Yes, I do. But I’m gonna do it anyway.”
He also promised more goodies on the trade talks theme
The transaction is expected to increase Salesforce’s FY20 total revenue by approximately $350 million to $400 million. This estimate reflects a fair value adjustment to reduce unearned revenue and unbilled unearned revenue by approximately 30%, adjustments related to the combined customer base, and inter-company revenue elimination, as required by U.S. GAAP. FY20 Revenue is now expected to be $16.45 billion to $16.65 billion, an increase of 24% to 25% year-over-year.
FY20 non-GAAP EPS: As discussed further below, guidance updates for GAAP EPS for all periods discussed are not currently available and Salesforce expects to provide the applicable updates when the transaction has closed and the purchase accounting has been completed. The acquisition is expected to decrease FY20 non-GAAP diluted EPS by approximately ($0.20) to ($0.22). FY20 Non-GAAP EPS is now expected to be $2.68 to $2.70.
I understand the concept of investing in the future & investing in growth, but paying 40x revenues with stock to lower your earnings power per share about 8% really feels a bit out there to me.
Some business models & businesses simply become outmoded as technology pass them by. But there are still some older first-generation internet companies which could likely get kicked into high gear if they had new management.
Consider web hosting company Endurance International Group. They are not really growing, but they have a lot of recurring subscription customers & they are valued at far less than 1 times revenues. And that is after their stock had a massive short squeeze today on above 3X normal trade volume.
If you have 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands of hosting clients, how many cross sells (ecommerce shopping cart? security certificates? domain names? domain privacy? email marketing?) or other upgrades (security certificates? enhanced uptime guarantees? premium customer support? premium on-site analytics services? ad management?) do you need to do in order to really turn things around.
The duality in valuations between innovative stories & companies that are not particularly growing has perhaps never been greater.
There are no asset managers who represent their strategy to clients as “We buy the most expensive assets, and add to them as they rise in price and valuation.” That’s unfortunate, because this is the only strategy that could have possibly enabled an asset manager to outperform in the modern era. It’s one of those things you could never advertise, but had you done it, you’d have beaten everyone over the ten-year period since the market’s generational low.
But almost every investment professional says that they do the opposite of this. Even the explicitly growth-oriented managers use terms like “at a reasonable price,” to communicate their place on the spectrum of speculative chastity. There are no textbooks lauding an investment approach where it makes more sense to buy PayPal at 4 times book on its way to 9 times book while forsaking Goldman Sachs at less than 1 times book.
In the battle for capital right now, the brands and intangibles and user bases and networks are winning by a landslide against the things that used to be important. And the companies that are rich in those old fashioned things, like Walmart, Disney and McDonalds, are spending all of their time and attention to transform themselves into the spitting image of their upstart competitors. Disney wants to look like Netflix, Walmart wants to retail like Amazon, McDonalds wants to be as habit-forming and celebrated for its freshness as its former protege Chipotle is. Goldman Sachs wants to grow up to be BlackRock. And in emulating these younger models, they hope, their multiples will soon be following suit.
Fast-growth money losing online retailer of pet foods Chewy (CHWY) raised about $1 billion in an IPO that valued them at about $9 billion. And that is a literal modern analog to Pets.com. Except it also has a dual class share structure where insider shares have a 10:1 voting advantage. And, of course, the market ate it up with shares trading up 60% on the first day, giving them an enterprise value of just under $14 billion.
in the most recent fiscal year, Chewy notched a 68% y/y growth rate in revenues, but still found itself with a -$268 million loss
Two analogs for pondering the valuation of Chewy…
Online pet medicine retailer Petmed Express isn’t really growing & has perhaps been driven down quite a bit over the past year as it has competed against the ad budget of Chewy. Anyhow, PETS has a market cap of $351 million, no debt, an enterprise value of $251 million after subtracting cash on the books, a P/E of 9.6, an enterprise value to sales ratio below 1, and a 6.14% dividend.
Kroger (KR) is the leading pure-play grocery store across the United States. Their market cap is under $20 billion & their enterprise value is under $35 billion.
Going back to the cloud & internet services for a moment, there is a massive duality in how things are priced. Cell tower REITs like American Tower (AMT), Crown Castle (CCI) & SBA Communications (SBAC) trade like we are going to increase data usage 5-fold annually for the next couple decades. The REIT cell tower plays give dividend value investors at least a bit of cash they throw off, but then they also sell the narrative of perpetual geometric growth.
Telecom players like AT&T (T) or Verizon (VZ) which license the services of the above REITs are viewed as dinosaurs allergic to innovation, with steep dividends & large debt service costs that prohibit innovation.
Is it certain FANG will keep eating most the enterprise value growth as the web continues to grow?
And then with all the data we are creating it has to be stored somewhere. Its in the cloud. Ok, but on what? Still mostly on hard drives, because replicating data across multiple of those is far cheaper than putting everything on flash drives. Western Digital (WDC) is valued at under $11 billion & is worth about 45% of their 52-week high. Seagate (STX) is valued at around $12 billion.
I have been more than a bit overwhelmed with the web recently, so haven’t been trading as much as I did a few months back, but I did trade in and out of both WDC & STX early in the day for small wins. Segate was down a couple percent early in the day & now it is up about a percent. I still have a small position. And as a bonus, tomorrow they go ex-div, so that’s another percent and change. 🙂
US District Richard Leon — who warned lawyers at a little-noticed hearing last week that they may want to cancel their summer vacation plans — looks like he is setting the stage to reject the mega-merger on concerns that it could raise prices and kill choices for consumers, sources told The Post.
I am sure that narrative is likely to drive lots of investor uncertainty, which will likely have the stock re-testing recent lows, as all the projects from the investor day & all that jazz mean zero if the company which is being restructured to synergize then ends up having to desynergize (is that a word?) and rip itself apart. Most likely the sort of worst outcome there won’t happen, but the headline risk will probably pull the stock down about another 5% to maybe even 10% from here.
I still have a decent sized exposure to CVS, but no reason to carry a Godzilla size position in a beaten down security that is facing a fresh round of headline risk ahead of other rounds of headline risk tied to the upcoming election.
On the upside, I offset much of the losses from the above errant play by exiting a decent sized PETS position shortly after open today. I sold something like 5400 shares into the morning ramp without really moving the price as the momentum was headed up, and then it slid later in the day.
I also had a bit of a position in WY that I sold after the ex-div date. The stock was sold at a slight loss but the dividend was between double & triple the loss, so I am fine with that & I kind of want to lighten up exposure to the market after the recent run it has had, especially as I have had a few fiascos to deal with outside of the market & the constant distraction of the market probably wasn’t helping my productivity elsewhere.
I am probably somewhere around 95% cash now. Have a small position that is up in Disney, small position that is up in Apple & then a few beaten down ones in CVS, WBA & SKT.
I might start buying some lower beta beaten-down value stocks of the type recommended in Sure Dividend in my Vanguard account & view those as more long-term positions vs something to trade in and out of. Value investing is all about being able to eat pain in the short term until sentiment approves. The odds of finding a bottom when trading beaten down stuff is low, but if you hold enough positions for a long enough time & stay away from absolute garbage like Sears the value stuff will definitely outperform the market in a downturn & can give you much of the upside in an ongoing expansion.
I’ll probably wait at least another week or two to do much because with the recent run the market has had it will probably consolidate for a bit given the morning open & afternoon pullback today.
There is no point going through all the dirty aspects of politics to gain a position of power unless you intend to use it. Some have believed Trump to be a slave to the stock market, but in rapid succession he…
raise tariffs on Chinese imports
announce escalating tariffs on Mexican imports until illegal immigration crisis abates
hinted he was looking at putting tariffs on Australian aluminum & other exports
had leaks from the justice department & FTC announcing that Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google are all being looked into
President Donald Trump’s Friday move to slap tariffs on Mexico meant “the dam broke” for economists who had been hesitating to join the market in anticipating Fed rate cuts, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Jan Hatzius and his team said.
The above Bloomberg article concludes with
investing superstar Stan Druckenmiller is piling in. He said he could see the Fed funds rate going to zero in the next 18 months if the economy softens.
“When the Trump tweet went out, I went from 93% invested to net flat, and bought a bunch of Treasuries,” Druckenmiller said Monday evening, referring to the May 5 tweet from President Donald Trump threatening an increase in tariffs on China. “Not because I’m trying to make money, I just don’t want to play in this environment.”
Yesterday as there was sector rotation into value stocks I bought a bit of beaten down stocks like AbbVie, Foot Locker, Bank OZK, etc. & also traded in and out of PetMed Express 3 or 4 times. On today’s explosive open I sold out of most those positions I put on for a few hundred dollars gain each. I also sold out a small stake I had in Western Digital & a bit of AT&T. I am down to a couple boring holdings in a couple REITs & the 2 biggest pharmacy chains. If they suck I will hope on steady dividend payments until they stop sucking & if they turn up a bit more I might lighten up even more. I think I am probably a bit north of 90% cash at this point.
I am probably going to remain mostly in cash & shorter duration bonds as if the market has someone as talented & experienced as Stanley Druckenmiller sitting on his hands, it would be a bit bold for me to try to go big in such an environment.
Google is drawing regulatory scrutiny from the United States Department of Justice, which has sent their stock sliding about 7% so far today.
At this point, Google has literally almost nobody on their side in the political game. Everyone has a reason to hate them. Republicans think they squelch free speech that does not align with their political bias. Democrats think they are too economically powerful & use their monopoly to dominate smaller competitors (and, worse yet, they combined with Facebook & Russia to help get Trump elected).
Google is now off over 20% from where they were trading on April 29th, sliding from ~ $1,288 to around $1,027 a share.
it created new design features like the “knowledge graph,” which populates the boxes that appear at the top of search, often answering a query without requiring the user to click through to another website. In March, 62% of Google searches on mobile were “no-click” searches, according to research firm Jumpshot. Google has argued that if consumers don’t find the rearranged content useful, they won’t click on it.
The bolded part directly contradicts Google’s historical behaviors when enforcing guidelines on others. When manually penalizing sites for link spam Google presumes the target site acquired the links on their own accord (even if they were built by a competitor). Google further justifies manual interactions on the basis that perceived attempts to manipulate the result set are verboten, not that searchers are so sophisticated that they can easily skip over any lower quality stuff that makes its way to the top.
They’ve recently redesigned their mobile search results while making both domain names & their ad labeling less obvious. That & other changes (like adding favicons to organic results to make the organic results look like ads & scrollable local results) should juice earnings, but the broader narrative of perceived risk certainly creates incentive for some people to lighten up their positions.
Making domain names less obvious will push more brands to bid on their own brand as a broad-match keyword in order to try to curtail phishing & other forms of lowbrow brand arbitrage which will now take off since the search results usually no longer show the domain name the content came from.
My guess is during this quarter Google constrains infrastructure spending, has blow out revenue growth (in addition to the mobile shifts mentioned above, some YouTube vids have double pre-roll & post-roll ads) AND announces a buyback. Though they only have a month left in the current quarter to drive blow out revenues.
The Google narrative likely has another day or two of spook out ahead of it, but I wouldn’t be against putting on a small position of a few shares of it here. I haven’t yet (largely because I dislike them :D) but if they slide below $1,000 a share at some point much of the risk is priced out of the stock.
Their big issue (in addition to the regulatory pressure) is Amazon is rapidly growing their ad business & Google seems unlikely to compete on the logistics front with Amazon unless Google were to acquire companies like Target & Kroger, but their ability to pull off those sorts of acquisitions is diminished when they are already under regulatory scrutiny.
Whenever they start reporting YouTube as a separate revenue stream (like Amazon.com did with AWS) that should lead to a good move higher in the stock. Though investors will likely remain in a wait-and-see mode given the recent slowdown in revenue growth & new regulatory headwinds. And they will still want to attribute a massive portion of their overhead costs & infrastructure costs to YouTube to show low margins on that. If they show high margins they’ll get revenue re-negotiation from a lot of players AND they look even worse each time an article like today’s NYT feature On YouTube’s Digital Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles gets published.
“Value stocks are either cheap for a good reason or cheap because of (unfairly) low expectations,” Patrick O’Shaughnessy, CEO and Portfolio Manager at O’Shaughnessy Asset Management, told IBD. “The market has left a lot of these stocks too cheap,” he said, but he can’t tell you when things will turn around. “Any good value investor knows how to suffer.”
The FTC’s plans for Amazon and the Justice Department’s interest in Google are not immediately clear. But the kind of arrangement brokered between the Justice Department and the FTC typically presages more serious antitrust scrutiny, the likes of which many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have sought out of fear that tech companies have become too big and powerful.
FANG pulled down communications, the Nasdaq 100 & the S&P 500, while defensive sectors like healthcare, consumer staples, etc. and haven assets like gold are up on the day.
As government bond yields fall they make corporate bonds & bond alternatives (like REITs & value stocks) look more appealing by both offering higher relative yields AND having lower debt service costs (provided yield spreads do not blow out).
If tariffs were costing US households $831 each & Huawei technology was legitimately superior I am skeptical we’d go through with cutting them off. Their wholesale theft of Cisco IP including the typos in user manuals would indicate their “tech” is more recycled than cutting edge.
Rather their theft-based economic growth miracle is coming to an end. It is smart for the US to do unto China as China would do unto others. If they block your legitimate enterprises based on “security” to drive subsidies for home grown (cloned?) competition, then block their tech exports based on “security”
If things are unbalanced & such lack of balance is hollowing out your economy you need to launch economic grenades at the other side so they eat a bit of their own home cooking.
Not to mix metaphors, but… nothing is more unpalatable than home cooking when the chef knows the cut rate foods that made the ingredient list to create the poisoned stew.
Baidu is priced like a heavy industrial commodity tied to a cyclical company that has been through a couple bankruptcies in the past 20 years. Baidu’s share price is around where it was at the end of 2010. Skepticism is high & even a $1 billion buyback announcement had no real impact on the decline, as that is only about 5% of their investible capital & they might further dilute the company by listing it in China.
Each day their stock looks cheaper than the past. But how low might they go if the fleeing foreign capital is followed up by a bit more selling to drive the price down in order to repatriate the company as a whole?
Think of how much stimulus China has done in the past decade (via the rule of 72 & an 8% growth rate they’ve more than doubled) & yet such a core company tied to the rapid growth of the web – sitting in a monopoly position – has went nowhere in terms of market cap.
Net buybacks have had a bigger impact than most would believe.
net buybacks—the number of shares that companies repurchased across the entire stock market, less the number of new shares issued—explain the bulk of the intermediate- and longer-term differences in stock-market returns around the world. … China’s real GDP, in U.S. dollars, grew at an 8.0% annualized rate over the 10 years through year-end 2018, versus a 2.1% annualized rate for U.S. GDP. And yet U.S. equities’ annualized return over this decade was more than double that of China’s. … net buybacks explain 80% of the difference in countries’ returns between 1997 and 2017. … The researchers calculated that the issuance of new shares in the Chinese market—largely as state-owned enterprises went private—had a “massive dilution effect” of nearly 24% a year between 1997 and 2017. Little wonder, therefore, that the country’s equities struggled over this period, despite its economy’s incredibly fast growth.”
As far as the broader stock market goes we are back in December in terms of momentum. Jawboning isn’t really driving the markets: “the short-squeeze in yuan lasted around an hour, before sellers returned… Erasing all Guo’s hard jawboning work.”
Their strategy is perfectly clear, therefore also the implications. Managed decline. … But in order to manage just that minimal growth in currency, the dollar squeeze on the asset side means something has to give. The only thing left, China’s big monetary fudge factor or plugline, is bank reserves. Therefore, in order for currency to stay positive bank reserves have now to contract by around 8-10% every month.
The leader of the free world has a super hero name for himself and it’s “Tariff Man“, a state of affairs you’d think would be conducive to inflation. As it happens, Tariff Man has a penchant for pro-cyclical fiscal policy that borders on the fanatical. Again, that should be conducive to inflation, as piling fiscal stimulus atop a late-cycle dynamic when unemployment is parked at a five-decade nadir is tempting fate, assuming the Phillips curve is “just sleeping” (and not “gone to meet its maker”, like the Norwegian blue). And “Tariff Man” is also engaged in an around-the-clock effort to commandeer monetary policy, which he’d like to be pro-cyclical too. One more time: That should be conducive to inflation.
Our solution to every bump in the road is more intervention versus more capitalism:
“The economic engine we have in place today has for decades produced virtually no increase in wealth for the majority of earners. According to information pulled from the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of the bottom three quintiles of families declined in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1998 until 2013, tumbling by 20 percent or more. This decrease has hit working-class families the hardest; their real net worth has been halved over this time. … I’d argue that we don’t really have all that much capitalism anymore. Individuals simply do not have equal, competitive rights to own the means of production. Corporations, which have replaced both the feudal empires of the 1600s and the trusts of the early 1900s, are the contemporary preferred owners of capital goods to be extended privileged rights by central governments. … With Blackstone able to offset the cost of its 400 lawyers against $5 trillion of assets, how can small banks or asset managers compete? The answer is they can’t, so they get acquired (or go out of business). … researchers at Harvard Business School have shown that favorable merger reviews are more likely for firms that make large political donations to the politicians who sit on the two committees that oversee the FTC and the DOJ. … From 1950 to 1980 or so, prices on average goods were marked up roughly 18 percent above marginal cost; this level was largely stable during the entire period. However, beginning in the 1980s, prices began to rise, rocketing to 67 percent above cost today. When you are an oligopoly and customers have no real choice among the top three to five providers, you don’t need to openly collude. Just all raise your prices together, and customers are stuck. … it’s critical for the government to normalize the legal rights of individuals to, at the very least, give them equal status with the current preferred neofeudal empire, the corporation.”
three weeks after the president rekindled the trade war with China, sending the Dow into a 4% tailspin, traders are growing increasingly impatient for their dose of White House succor. Where is it?
There is literally no incentive for the Federal Reserve to intervene after a 4% correction. They’ve exited their market distorting QE efforts, already announced QT will end in about a quarter & now President Trump owns the stock market narrative.
A big part of the purpose of the Trump tax cuts was to let the economy run hot to where wages were improving & he had a big cushion he could use to put the screws to China to force a more favorable trade deal. However the Federal Reserve used the economic strength to justify lifting rates.
Many states & local governments also lifted income taxes to fund underfunded pension plans. In many areas the state & local increases more than offset the Federal rate declines.
So now there is rising input costs, disrupted supply chains, net tax rates that are flat to up, faltering stock markets, & inverted yield curves. What’s more, the Federal Reserve engaging in QT & lifting rates has been a large part of why the stock market has went nowhere over the past year and a half. So that means lower capital gains driven tax revenues, which when combined with higher interest expense on servicing the debt have blown out the deficit.
That view is perhaps cynical, but a decade ago it was the financial economy that was saved while the actual economy was allowed to burn to the ground.
And now that Trump owns the market, the bubble fomenting arsonists at the Federal Reserve would prefer to remain in the background & wait until such a crisis emerges that they can don the firefighting suit & claim they saved the world.
So the market probably has at least another 10% to the downside before there is any serious jawboning to presage any further non-market interventions.
“Ninety five percent of spot bitcoin trading volume is faked by unregulated exchanges, according to a study from Bitwise this week. The firm analyzed the top 81 crypto exchanges by volume on industry site CoinMarketCap.com. They report an aggregated $6 billion in average daily bitcoin volume. The study finds that only $273 million of that is legitimate.”
Facebook aims to burrow more deeply into the lives of its users. It is building a type of checkout option that consumers could use on other websites, some of the people said. Similar to how a Facebook profile can be used to log into hundreds of websites (including The Wall Street Journal), Facebook envisions allowing those credentials to be selected as a payment method when users buy goods online. … One idea under discussion is Facebook paying users fractions of a coin when they view ads, interact with other content or shop on its platform—not unlike loyalty points accrued at retailers, some of the people said. … It is also working to tie online purchases more closely to ads.”
The idea of using cryptocurrencies for regular day to day purchases is still for the most part unrealistic unless they have that sort of loyalty program incentive bonus integrated with them.
“As of the date [April 30] I am signing this affidavit, Tether has cash and cash equivalents (short term securities) on hand totaling approximately $2.1 billion, representing approximately 74 percent of the current outstanding tethers.”
Volatility is the main reason people invest in & believe in cryptocurrencies.
The transaction fees are more than a bit overwhelming. E-trade may soon offer cryptocurrency trading, but they’d mostly appeal to daytraders & daytraders would need much tighter spreads than what something like Coinbase offers.
The following shows why cryptocurrencies are utterly horrible in terms of transaction costs. As of about an hour ago Coinbase would buy a Bitcoin for $7,993.35 though they would also charge a $119.10 fee, driving that buy price down to $7,874.25. The same service would sell a Bitcoin for $8,073.37, with an additional bonus fee of $120.29, bringing the cost to $8,193.66.
If you average together the buy & sell price it comes to $8,033.96, with a $319.41 spread. That means if you invest $8,000 at a time, you are getting clipped for a 1.99% spread in each direction each time you trade.
How much more ridiculous do those fees get if you are dealing in smaller sums? Do they go from 2% in each direction to 5%? And what convenience do they provide over cash that offsets the massive conversion fees & the headache of dealing with the accounting of gains and losses on all those FX transactions.
The spreads are much better if you use Coinbase Pro. For a similar transaction fee you could put through a $50,000 transaction & the spread outside of that fee is frequently only a dollar or two.
I am a bit surprised they haven’t damaged their brand with what a rip off their core platform is relative to the rates available on their pro subdomain. Even so, the PRO user interface would probably overwhelm most people who’ve never traded financial instruments.
A person who was willing to hold a small amount of inventory could probably run a decent arbitrage business creating something like the core Coinbase site while buying & selling off the PRO subdomain.
Price up. Volume up.
Though the critical question remains: is any of it real?
Roku smashed their quarterly numbers, which led to a big pop at open yesterday & the stock was up over 25% on the day. They are winning on top of winning, with revenue per user up, users up, and users using their service more and more.
Zillow reported quarterly numbers which beat expectations & have their stock up about 6% today in spite of the market sliding on the trade war narrative.
I’m not seeing how the Zillow numbers were good. Their core high-margin business continues to decelerate.
their core (high-margin) Premier Agent business was up 2% YoY from $213.7 million to $217.7 million
in prior quarters they claimed slowing growth in this business line was from shifting the business model from selling email leads to selling a mix of email & phone leads
I still see Zillow as having strong value that would be nearly impossible to recreate for less than the cost of buying the company outright. But you would think they would have more growth in their core Realtor-focused ad products given how dominant they are in their category.
Uber opened down about $3 below their IPO price of $45 a share. The wave of startups adding to the stock market could adversely impact aggregate share scarcity.
If this was just about economic growth, the S&P 500 this cycle would have peaked around 1,850, a thousand points lower than where we are now. … What has been the driver is this near-perfect symmetry we have seen: between a US$4 trillion expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet, a US$4 trillion surge in corporate debt, and US$4 trillion in share buybacks. By creating scarcity in the market for safe securities this cycle, investors were forced to move up the risk curve and this meant tremendous opportunity for CEOs and CIOs to issue gobs of debt to receptive yield-starved investors. And this debt, or at least 25 per cent of the new issuance, went to fund an unprecedented wave of share buybacks.
If the trade war goes astray, it could be a market top for some period of time, particularly if Uber has already seen their high.
“Gulf money is notoriously late to the party, purchasing Carlye Group in 2007 at the peak of the credit bubble, and anchor investors in Glencore IPO in 2011 at the peak of the commodity bubble. Now they are “all in” on Uber and opened offices in Silicon Valley to do more. … When the leading company in the hottest sector goes public, it reflects a peak in social mood and usually presents an important inflection point in financial markets. As a rule, insiders sell at the top. … The AOL Time Warner merger in 2000 culminated in the tech crash, the Blackstone IPO in 2007 presaged the 2008 meltdown, and the Glencore listing in 2011 marked the peak in the commodity super-cycle. Uber, we believe, will mark the peak in Silicon Valley and tech valuations.”
Those who expressed confidence in adverting a trade war based on the (bogus) constructive commentary get to wake up some presidential weekend Tweets stating otherwise.
There’s a very difficult problem with China and the trade situation: They have structured their entire economy around cheating and embedded it into the Community Party, which has top-level control over all of it.
Trying to change that is likely a bridge too far; it would require the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi himself, to acknowledge that (1) what they were doing was and is wrong and (2) they’ll cut it out.
The second you might get. The first you won’t get.
Communists are never wrong, you see. They can’t be. To admit so is to admit their political and economic system is wrong and therefore that other competing ideas might be superior. Down that road lies their own death and they know it.
pension funds are significantly underfunded & they roughly need to get about a 7.5% return to meet cashflow obligations
pensions tend to prefer the credit markets to the stock market & use leverage to drive further incremental gains over the yield on a particular bond
many companies issue debt into the hungry bond market & use the funds to buy back shares, goosing earnings per share by lowering the denominator with a lower share count
it is hard to outperform the stock market index with active management at scale & many active managers are short the market, driving further underperformance
it is much easier to outperform in bonds during a bull market by simply buying lower quality debts at higher yield, which works until it doesn’t.
the Detroit bankruptcy changed the actuarial assumptions for public pension plans because pensioners did eat a loss. thus state & local tax increases ramped significantly, which more than offset the much heralded Trump tax cut
market volatility dissipates & the market returns its grind ever higher until at some point pension plans ask to cash out of a particular issue & are unable to, which drives a rush for the exits.
the above sort of cycle has driven bubble after bubble. so far this century we have had bubbles in:
telecom / internet / information technology, which caused the Federal Reserve to lower rates, thus igniting
residential real estate / housing, which caused the subprime bubble crash after they began raising rates, which then led to large scale balance sheet expansion, which then led to a bubble in
commodities, in particular debt associated with oil fracking & then a commodity price decline, …
and now some sectors of commercial real estate
individual investors have favored ETFs over mutual funds, but largely that move has been a wash. most of the net buying of stock since the recovery has been from buybacks from companies.
he believes a while after yields invert there will be an LBO spree which will drive the final blow off top
in the next crisis pension plans are perhaps going to be more likely to receive a bailout than banks were in the last crisis
the pension-driven bubble cycle is likely only to end if we go from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution pension plans