• HOME
  • About the contributor
  • Glossary
  • Articles (RSS)
Subscribe to Daily Newsletter
RECENT ARTICLES
  • An analytic framework for 2012
  • There is no decoupling
  • Recap of 2011 and thoughts for 2012
  • The Fed already started QE3, but in the Eurozone
  • The detail nobody talks about

ARTICLES CALENDAR
April 2009
S M T W T F S
    May »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARTICLES CATEGORIES
  • Letter Articles

ARCHIVES
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009

Search this Blog

Archive of December 5th, 2011

Higher stocks on weaker fundamentals: You should not be surprised

Published on April 20th 2009

Stocks and commodity prices may rise because the existing holders of government debt and distressed assets bought by the U.S. government take advantage of the bid by the Fed, which is a unique window of opportunity, to unload their holdings and FLEE to safer assets.

I thought I would start reviewing the events on Friday. But description without analysis is sterile. It leads nowhere, and we want to get somewhere with all this much writing.
What sort of analysis am I referring to? Lately, almost every piece of research on the state of the markets points at the enormous slack building up in the global economy. Capacity is not fully used, labour is not fully employed. This situation is evidently deflationary. Market analysts, who spend impressive amounts of intellectual capital deciphering loads of statistics, write with a tone of frustration, that they find ironic to see stock and commodity prices increasing. This so called bear market rally, in their opinion, is bound to finish in tears.
I must say it is easy to agree with this analysis. However, there seems to be a critical contradiction. When the markets were plunging in 2007-08, these analysts were quick to point out that the phenomenon was due to deleveraging. And they were right! There was no use in focusing on fundamentals. It did not matter whether a company had a quasi-monopoly, or a healthy balance sheet, or good management. The relevant factor was that investors were running for cover and liquidity was the key to survival. If it is illicit to regard fundamentals in times of deleveraging, why is it allowed to consider them, in times of leveraging?
Ah, but who is leveraging? Yes, it is hard to think along this line, but if the Fed is “creating” billions every week to outright purchase debt from the U.S. government, then someone is leveraging its investments. That someone is the U.S. government. The U.S. government (the Treasury and the Fed) is buying the distressed assets from the U.S. private sector, with leverage. That leverage is the amount of resources the government does not currently have (i.e. has not taxed yet…).

If this “axiom” sounds reasonable to you, let’s now face the next question: Why would stocks and commodity prices rise?
In short, stocks and commodity prices may rise because the existing holders of government debt and distressed assets bought by the U.S. government take advantage of the bid by the Fed, which is a unique window of opportunity, to unload their holdings and FLEE to safer assets. I may be wrong, but I think I saw a bit of this happening last Friday (April 17th)…
On Friday, the market was expecting the Fed to purchase GSE (Government sponsored enterprises: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks) debt, between 10:30 and 11:00 am (This schedule is known by market participants in advance). The expectation was that the Fed would target the Oct/15 and Jul/32 issues. Buyers of these issuances usually want to keep only what is called the credit spread, or the spread net of inflation. How do you do this? You buy the GSE issue and sell the Treasury issue that matches the term. For instance, in the case of a 30-year GSE bond, you would sell the 30-year Treasury. At about 9:30am on Friday, it was interesting to see how both the 10-year and 30-year Treasuries were being sold by speculators, driven by what I thought was the expectation that after conclusion of the sale of GSE debt, GSE investors were going to hedge their purchases (i.e. sell Treasuries). This made sense to me. Why would you want to keep Treasuries that you know have an inflated price (sustained by the Fed purchases) into the weekend, when you know that by mid-morning, more sellers will show up?
This is what you could see on Bloomberg by 10:30 am on Friday (Feb/19 Treasury on the right, Feb/39 Treasury on the left)

graf3

If my theory was correct, after the sale of GSE debt, when buyers sell Treasuries to hedge their spreads, we should see another sell-off in Treasuries. The Fed bought $3.07BN out of a $5.66BN submitted (par amounts, mostly in the 7+ years)
We could see this on Bloomberg by 12pm on Friday (Feb/19 Treasury on the right, Feb/39 Treasury on the left):

graf4

What would sellers of Treasuries now do? Flee to “safer” assets? Commodities? Stocks? Other currencies?
We could see this by 12pm on Friday (From left to right: Crude Oil, May 09 contract; S&P500; Canadian dollar):

graf5

The S&P500 finished the session up 0.5%, at 869.60 points. Is it possible to see a weaker USD (in terms of Canadian dollars) and stronger S&P500? Yes, if the asset allocation from Treasuries to stocks is not interpreted as a vote of confidence on the U.S. economy. In summary, it seems to me perfectly possible (and consistent) to see commodities and stocks “rally” while the macroeconomic picture is deflationary. This is what Gottfried Haberler referred to as “relative inflation” (see letter of April 14th). In fact, the opposite (i.e. Fed injecting liquidity while stock prices do NOT increase) would seem to me an oddity, because it would mean that inflation brings full employment and economic growth. Readers’ feedback is welcome.
Lastly, the graph below shows how the market had behaved by the end of the session on Friday:

graf6

137 Comments »

  • The comments expressed in this website and daily letters are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or its affiliates.
  • All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent research to verify the validity of any statements made in this website before basing any decisions upon those statements. In addition, any views or opinions expressed by visitors to this website are theirs and do not necessarily reflect mine.
  • The information contained herein is not necessarily complete and its accuracy is not guaranteed. If you are receiving this communication in error, please notify me immediately by electronic mail (martin@sibileau.com) or telephone at 647-999-2055.
  • My comments provide general information only. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation, an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other financial instrument or any derivative related to such securities or instruments (e.g., options, futures, warrants, and contracts for differences).
  • My comments are not intended to provide personal investment advice and they do not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person.
All rights reserved. A view from the Trenches is proudly powered by WordPress. Wordpress theme designed and coded by SibileauLang