What The Oil Market Internals Are Telling US
While active, front month oil futures are threatening to break out to new highs for the year, back month futures are in clear downtrends, which is longer-term bearish for the energy complex.
Real Economics vs. Trump’s Washington Buzz
As has been the case since the election, the political noise in the market is deafening.
But cutting through that noise, the reality is this: The gap between market expectations from Washington and the current reality has grown significantly in the month since Trump’s inauguration, and it is not an understatement to say that political disappointment risk is now very high.
Is Trump News Affecting Markets?
Specifically, Trump noise aside, all signs point to massive fractures in the Republican Party over the repeal/replace of Obamacare, and over border adjustments (the key to any material corporate tax reform).
To boot, the constant drama and infighting is draining Trump’s political capital even before we get close to deals on Obamacare and taxes. Specifically, the immigration ban battle, the Gen. Flynn drama, and the Puzder (the Labor Secretary nominee) withdrawal (where a full 12 Republican Senators would have voted against him) all are combining to reduce the likelihood of anything substantial on taxes.
Bottom line, the only thing politically that really matters to markets is tax cuts. But given the fractures appearing on Obamacare and border adjustments, the likelihood of material, pro-growth policy is fading… and fast.
Last week, Trump again touted fantastic things coming up, and Ryan promised an Obamacare repeal/replace by the end of February. Yet neither actually mean any progress (for that we need Republican support for bills in the Senate, and that’s lacking).
Going forward, a key date emerging on the calendar is February 28, when Trump is due to give an address before Congress (first year Presidents give this address instead of a State of the Union).
If there is no material progress on a compromise on a Obamacare repeal/replace or border adjustments within corporate tax reform by this address, then the political reality could begin to weigh on markets as investors begin to lose hope of pro-growth reforms in 2017.
Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves with the Sevens Report. Get a free two-week trial: www.7sReport.com.
“Is the Stock Market Too Expensive?” February 23, 2017
“Is the Stock Market Too Expensive?”
That’s a question I’m getting asked a lot lately by subscribers and colleagues.
With stocks at record highs, there is a lot of worry that the market is unsustainably expensive. But, that’s simply not the case.
Yesterday, in the full edition of The Sevens Report, we broke it down.
- Provided a three-part analysis of what makes the market 1) Expensive, 2) Fairly Valued (with some room for upside) and 3) Cheap
- Named each catalyst that would decide that valuation level
- Listed specific sector and style ETFs that we believe can outperform in this valuation environment.
Excerpt from that research below:
Valuation Update: How Overvalued Are Stocks?
It’s no secret that stocks are richly valued, but while those high valuations make me generally uncomfortable (I’m a value investor at heart) I do feel the need to push back a bit on the idea that valuations, alone, are a reason to lighten up on equity exposure.
Yes, in some scenarios the stock market is simply “too expensive.” Still, there are other, more plausible scenarios where I can show the market as reasonably valued or even cheap. Here are a few of those scenarios.
The Market is Too Expensive If: You’re Looking at Current Year Earnings. Looking at current year earnings, the S&P 500 is historically very expensive. With consensus $128 2017 S&P 500 EPS, the S&P 500 is trading at a whopping 18.44X current year earnings. Anything above 18X has proven (longer term) historically unsustainable.
The Market Is Not Too Expensive (Yet) If: You Look At Next Year’s (2018) Earnings (And This is Without Any Tax Cuts). Consensus 2018 (so next year) EPS are around $135, which does not include any benefit from a corporate tax cut. At $135, the S&P 500 is trading at 17.4X next year’s earnings. Yes, that is expensive (the 20-year average is 17.2X per FactSet) but it’s not unsustainable, not in an environment with historically low interest rates and an apparent macro-economic acceleration.
In fact, if the macro set up doesn’t change (and we don’t get any definitively bad news from Washington), I could see investors pushing that multiple to 18X, or 2,430 in the S&P 500 (about 3% higher from here).
Above that, I think the market would get somewhat prohibitively expensive, but that would depend on what’s happening with the economy, inflation and rates.
The Market Is Cheap If: Real, Material Corporate Tax Cuts Get Implemented. If we do get material corporate tax cuts in 2017, most analysts think that would add at least $10/share to S&P 500 EPS, bringing the 2018 number from $135 to $145.
At $145 EPS, the S&P 500 would be trading at just 16.3X next year’s earnings, which in this environment could easily be considered reasonable if not outright cheap.
“Is the stock market too expensive?”
Six Value ETFs That Can (and Have) Outperformed
From a practical standpoint, the fact that the stock market is on the expensive side historically does reinforce my preference for value-oriented ETFs. Since late 2016, we’ve focused our tactical strategies on sectors we considered a “value” and they have handily outperformed the S&P 500:
- In September of 2016, we strongly advocated getting long banks due to 1) Compelling valuation and 2) The start of the uptrend in bond yields. Since that call on September 26, our preferred bank ETF has risen 41%!
- In late 2016, while many analysts were chasing cyclical sectors in the wake of the election, we instead advocated buying value in super-cap internet stocks. Our preferred internet ETF has risen 9.8% in 2017, handily outperforming the S&P 500.
- At the start of 2017, we cited the maligned healthcare sector as our preferred contrarian play for 2017, based on the idea that overly negative political fears had created a value opportunity. Our two preferred healthcare ETFs have risen 7.3% and 7.5% so far in 2017, and we think that trend of outperformance will continue.
- More broadly, we have identified two “Value” style ETFs that we believe will outperform the markets in this current macro-environment, and these two broad ETFs remain our preferred vehicle to be generically “long” the market.
The Sevens Report doesn’t just help you cut through the noise and focus on what’s truly driving markets – we also provide tactical idea generation and technical analysis to help our subscribers outperform. You can sign up for your free trial today: www.7sReport.com.
“This is a huge value add. If I can avoid even a modest portion of significant market pullbacks, and be well-invested during bull markets based on your Dow Theory calls, my clients will be extremely happy with me. I already look like a genius to them!” – Financial Advisor with a National Brokerage Firm, New York, NY.
10 Year T-Note Yield Remains Pinned
The 10 year yield remains effectively pinned between 2.30% and 2.60% as Fed policy outlook is as unclear as current fiscal policy outlook.
Disappointing Numbers from Flash February Manufacturing & Service PMIs: February 22, 2017
Below is an excerpt from the “Economics” section of the Sevens Report. The Sevens Report has everything you need to know about the markets by 7am each morning in 7 minutes or less—can get a free trial if you sign up now.
Flash February Manufacturing & Service PMIs
- Feb. Manufacturing PMI declined to 54.3 vs. (E) 55.5.
- Fed. Service PMI declined to 53.9 vs. (E) 55.9.
Takeaway
In what was a surprising contradiction to last week’s very strong Empire and Philly manufacturing PMIs, both flash PMIs declined, and implied increased stagflation risk, signaling that further economic acceleration is not a foregone conclusion.
Now, to be clear, neither number was outright bad in an absolute sense. Both numbers in aggregate are reflective of a decently strong economy. Yet in order to power stocks higher in the context of growing political dysfunction, data needs to continue to show acceleration, and neither of these flash PMIs showed acceleration.
Declines in Nearly Every Sub Index of the PMI
Looking specifically at the manufacturing PMI, New Orders, the leading indicator in the Report, dipped to 56.2 from 57.4 (still a very high absolute reading but a decline nonetheless). In fact, virtually every sub index declined in February except for input prices, which rose slightly to 56.1 from 56.0. Notably, output prices (i.e. selling prices) dipped slightly to 51.7 vs. 51.9, which is indicative of margin compression. One number doesn’t make a trend, but that’s something to keep an eye on.
Bottom line, the flash PMIs are one of the bigger economic numbers each month, and this was a surprising disappointment. It won’t change the trajectory of the rally near term, but strong (and stronger) economic data is a critical support to this market, especially in the face of growing doubts in Washington. So, the rest of February’s data just got a lot more interesting.
Get the simple talking points you need to impress clients and prospects. Sign up for your free trial today: The Sevens Report.
Natural Gas Futures Plunge
Natural gas futures plunged 9% to settle at a 6-month low yesterday as speculative longs “threw in the towel” on bets that colder than average temperatures might spur elevated demand in the back half of winter.
Economics: This Week and Last Week. February 21, 2017
An excerpt from today’s Sevens Report. Subscribe now to get the full report in your inbox before 7am each morning.
Both economic growth and inflation accelerated according to last week’s data, and while the former continues to help support stocks despite a darkening outlook from Washington, the latter also is increasing the likelihood of a more hawkish-than-expected Fed in 2017, and a resumption of the uptrend in interest rates. For now, though, the benefit of the former is outweighing the risk of the latter.
If, however, we do not see any dip in the data between now and early May, I do expect the Fed to hike rates at that May meeting, which would be a marginal hawkish surprise. To boot, if we get a strong Jobs report (out Friday, March 3), then a March rate hike two weeks later isn’t out of the question. Point being, upward pressure is building on interest rates again.
Last Week
Both economic growth and inflation accelerated according to last week’s data.
Looking at last week’s data, it was almost universally strong. Retail Sales, which was the key number last week, handily beat expectations as the headline rose 0.4% vs. (E) 0.1% while the more important “Control” retail sales (which is the best measure of discretionary consumer spending) rose 0.4% vs. (E) 0.3%. Additionally, there were positive revisions to the December data, and clearly the US consumer continues to spend (which is more directly positive for the credit card companies).
Additionally, the first look at February manufacturing data was very strong. Empire Manufacturing beat estimates, rising to 18.7 vs. (E) 7.5, a 2-1/2 year high. However, it was outdone by Philly Fed, which surged to 43.3 vs. (E) 19.3, the highest reading since 1983! Both regional manufacturing surveys are volatile, but clearly they show an uptick in activity, which everyone now expects to be reflected in the national flash PMI.
Even housing data was decent as Housing Starts beat estimates on the headline, while the more important single family starts (the better gauge of the residential real estate market) rose 1.9%. Single family permits, a leading indicator for single family starts, did dip by 2.7%, but even so the important takeaway from this data is that so far, higher interest rates don’t appear to be negatively impacting the residential housing market, and a stable housing market is a key, but underappreciated, ingredient to economic acceleration.
Finally, looking at the Fed, Yellen’s commentary was marginally hawkish, as she was upbeat on the economy, basically saying the nation had achieved full employment and was closing on 2% inflation, and reiterated that a rate hike should be considered at upcoming meetings. None of her comments were new, but the reiteration of them reminds us that the Fed is in a hiking cycle, and the risk is for more hikes… not less.
This Week
The big number this week is the February global flash manufacturing PMI, out Tuesday. With last week’s strong Empire and Philly Surveys, expectations will be pretty elevated for the flash manufacturing PMI, so there is some risk of mild disappointment. On the flip side, if this number is very strong (like Empire and Philly) you will likely see a hawkish reaction out of the markets (dollar/bond yields up) and the expectation for a rate hike before June increases. That, by itself, shouldn’t cause a pullback in stocks, but upward pressure will build on interest rates.
Outside of the flash manufacturing PMIs, the FOMC minutes from the January meeting will be released Wednesday, and investors will parse the comments for any clues as to the likelihood of a March increase. Yet given the amount of political/fiscal uncertainty, and considering the FOMC meeting was before the strong January jobs report and recent acceleration in data, I’d be surprised if the minutes are very hawkish (although given they are dated, I don’t think that not-dovish minutes reduces the chances of a May or even March hike).
Bottom line, the focus will be on the flash manufacturing PMIs, and a good number this week will be supportive for stocks.
Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if the Sevens Report is right for you.
What impact are Trump’s headlines having on markets?
Trump makes a lot of headlines, but what actually impacts the market?
After impacting the markets with his comment about a forthcoming “phenomenal” tax plan, the markets have been surprisingly unmoved by any of the headlines coming in from Washington D.C.
This week, we’ve seen stocks focusing on the good economic data (retail sales, Empire Manufacturing) and ignoring the political drama (Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee, Andrew Puzder, withdrew yesterday). Earlier this week, the market also remained steady after the news of National Security Administration Michael Flynn’s resignation.
What might Trump do to impact the market? After campaigning with somewhat hostile trade rhetoric, we’ve the realities of global trade soften his tone a bit. For example, he embraced the “One China” policy of governance over Taiwan. Similarly, so far Trump has resisted instructing the Treasury Department to label China a “currency manipulator” in its semi-annual currency report, due out in late March/early April. That would obviously be bad for stocks.
Find out first and keep your clients and prospects in the know. Sign up for your free trial of the Sevens Report and you’ll get all the market analysis in your inbox by 7am each morning. www.7sReport.com
Did One Fund Cause The Rally?
Make sense of the rumors FAST. Below is an excerpt from today’s Sevens Report: www.7sReport.com.
Easily the biggest story that circulated trading desks Thursday morning was an article that a $4 billion options fund was blowing up. In doing so, the implication was that is what has caused the relentless really we’ve seen in stocks since last Thursday.
The fund in question is the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy, and in a broad sense this fund sells volatility using option strategies.
Did one fund cause this rally?
The story/rumor going around is that this fund sold a massive amount of call spreads, making them effectively short $17 billion worth of S&P 500 Index futures. Well, you can imagine how that’s worked out over the past week, and the takeaway is that this fund has been relentless buying S&P 500 futures over the past week to cover their shorts… and that’s why stocks have surged.
Normally, these stories about funds blowing up and causing a market disruption are little more than rumors created to explain a market that is defying fundamentals. But, markets defy fundamentals in the short term quite frequently without fund blowups.
This, however, is a bit of a unique case, because we can actually see the return data for this fund (it’s an open-ended futures fund). Over the past week, the fund has lost -14%. That has brought its year-to-date return to -13.5%, meaning prior to the last week, the fund was flat year to date. Taking a quick look at historical returns, a 14% weekly move in this fund is not normal, so it’s fair to say that something has gone very wrong there.
Looking more broadly, does the story of this fund explain why the market simply hasn’t been able to go down for a week (and why it suddenly exploded higher last Thursday despite the lack of anything good happening)? Yes, partially.
Even though I can’t directly validate the story, it reinforces my skepticism on this latest move higher from 2,300 in the S&P 500, and that is that this is a rally built on chasing and a squeeze.
Skip the jargon, arcane details and drab statistics from in-house research, and get the simple analysis that will improve your performance. Get a free two-week trial of the Sevens Report: www.7sReport.com.
How Big a Risk is a Trade or Military Dispute? February 16, 2017
An excerpt from the Sevens Report. Sign up for a two-week free trial of the full report at www.7sReport.com.
Earlier this week I began profiling non-political risks to explore when making decisions for your clients and talking with prospects. Here’s number three:
Non-Political Risk #3: Surprise Trade or Military Dispute
Surprisingly, and potentially dangerously, the market has fully embraced Trump’s pro-growth “big three” of tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and deregulation while totally ignoring the hostile trade (and to a lesser degree) military rhetoric—and that selective focus has helped fuel this rally in stocks.
How big a risk is a trade conflict with China?
Part of the reason investors have somewhat ignored the rhetoric is because they assumed that once Trump got into power, the realities of global trade would soften his tone. To a point, that has happened. Last week, Trump embraced the “One China” policy of governance over Taiwan. And, this past weekend visit with Japanese PM Abe came and went with no explicit mention of currency manipulation or unfair trade. But, while those are positives it’d be foolish to think there isn’t a real risk of a trade dispute/war with China.
Originally, the fear was that Trump would instruct the Treasury Department to label China a “currency manipulator” in its semi-annual currency report, due out in late March/early April. That would likely ignite some sort of a trade war as it would place automatic tariffs on Chinese goods. Obviously, that wouldn’t be good for stocks.
Trump appears to have backed away from such a direct confrontation, but as a WSJ article detailed, the administration is looking for a less “in your face” way to punish China for its trade practices (you can read the article if you’re really interested) but basically the strategy is to label currency manipulation an “unfair subsidy,” not just by the Chinese, but by every country. If that’s done, then individual US companies can lobby the Commerce Department to impose du-ties on competitive goods from countries they believe use currency manipulation. It’s basically a less-direct way to put duties/tariffs on Chinese goods.
Here’s the problem: Other countries can retaliate and do the same thing to the US, and cite the Fed’s ultra-low rates as manipulating the US dollar lower.
This will obviously be a fluid situation, but with Peter Navarro as the head of the National Trade Council (remember he wrote the book, Death by China) it’s un-likely that we won’t at least have a trade scare this year with China.
Looking militarily, the only real area of concern right now (well, there are multiple areas of concern, but the most pressing one) is the growing conflict between the US and China regarding their bases in the South China Sea. Trump advisor Bannon is particularly focused on this issue, and military officials have flat-out said that China won’t be allowed to operate a functioning naval or air base on these manufactured islands. Again, this is a low-probability event, but it remains a possibility.
Probability of a disruptive trade war? <30%. While the possibility is there, I’d expect marginal moves to try and correct trade imbalances with China, not all out tariffs or import duties (although I’m sure they will be publicly threatened, which will be negative for sentiment).
“Leading Indicators” and, “How do we position if it happens?” sections are restricted to subscribers.
Take advantage of the limited time special offer—if you subscribe to the Sevens Report today, and after the first two weeks you are not completely satisfied, we will refund your first quarterly payment, in full, no questions asked.
Copyright 2017, Kinsale Trading LLC. All Rights Reserved. www.sevensreport.com